Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Often considered a pinnacle of medical technoscience, solid organ transplantation and related interventional devices (ventricular assist devices, VADs; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) are described and hoped for as a new and improved state that achieves or approximates cure from serious end-organ disease. At the same time, notions of cure and biomedicine’s “curative imaginary” (Kafer 2013; Clare 2017) have come increasingly under scrutiny as hegemonic ways of knowing and experiencing futurities where health is seen as limitless and intervention inevitable. This open panel asks, “what futures materialize, when transplant medicine is brought into conversation with a critical stance that questions presuppositions about life, livability, difference, and thriving?” We invite those working at critical intersections in STS, particularly critical disability (“crip”) studies and feminist STS, to bring their practices and methods to bear on the field of transplantation as well as transplant-related technologies and sciences. We are especially interested in papers that reflect on futurity as an unstable horizon that requires innovation in methods and practices—from arts-based methods and research creation, to sound studies, to social geographies, to ethnography—how might a diversity of approaches in STS help to understand issues such as the liminality of being waitlisted, the challenges of adhering to strict regimens to preserve a transplanted organ, or the not-infrequent experience of graft rejection? We welcome a range of formats for presentation and will work with presenters to ensure that their work is accessible. The panel will be graphically recorded as part of a larger knowledge mobilization practice.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
Academic conferences are prime sites of exchange in global science. As events where face-to-face or digital encounters occur, they represent important nodes of knowledge circulation, and serve as spaces of research communication, academic identity formation, and networking. ‘Conferencing’ is recognised as an essential activity for building an academic career, which is manifested through the inclusion of conference participation and organisation in recruitment and promotion criteria. 
Conference participation, however, frequently requires access to resources that are distributed highly unequally – such as funding, visas, work-place permission, family support, and freedom from care responsibilities for the duration of an event. As such, academic conferences are sites of privilege and disadvantage, which may reproduce social inequalities in relation to gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, social class/caste, disability, language, and other intersecting dimensions of difference. 
This panel critically interrogates conferencing as scientific practice and its structuring effects in academia. It invites contributions that offer a) theoretical conceptualisations of academic conferencing/conferences; b) analytical syntheses of pertinent literature; c) empirical studies that examine how conferencing/conferences reinforce inequalities; d) methodologically-oriented explorations of researching conference inequalities; e) reflections on prevailing/changing conference practices in the light of a climate crisis and global pandemic.
Despite growing interest in conferences and an expanding evidence base revealing their adverse social and environmental effects, they remain a niche subject in the social studies of science. This panel seeks to provide an integrative discursive space to stimulate the formation of a scholarly network for future exchange, linking STS with higher education research and gender studies.
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
This panel is concerned with how augmented reality is shaping personal identity and public communications, it’s social construction as media technology, and the outcomes of these trends for society. AR creates new kinds of digital relations for the physical world. It does not just layer over physical reality with virtual information (cf Azuma 1997, Kim et al. 2018), but helps us perceive and act in a world of novel personal, professional, and civic experiences. However, a dearth of knowledge on AR’s role in shaping and being shaped by society arrests the ability to steer AR’s social impact. And there is a clear and present need to do so: 2020 iPhones now incorporate novel AR-LIDAR surveillance sensors that map faces and the inside homes; there is growing acceptance of body-dysmorphic ‘lenses’ on social media that modify human appearance in real-time to, narrow, sexualise, add privacy, or otherwise reconfigure identity in public and private communication
This panel welcomes contributions across AR’s 1) Conceptualisation: how AR is imagined by those making AR experiences, as well as larger social discourses that enable and encourage its imaginaries; 2) Concretisation: how process of potential imaginaries succumb to market forces, civic pressure, technological limits, that deform any ideals of AR into material systems of media (Flusser, 1999) that design constraints towards specific properties and dynamics that mediate a specific reality; and 3) Contextualisation that reflects on how new media, despite their intended public debut, suffer continued social and cultural appropriation (Gitelman, 2006, p. 27).
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
When it comes to computational methods in design, architecture, and the built environment, practices and relations aspire for “neutral” and “optimized” techno-solutions to design problems. Portrayal of these computational tools and methods as neutral platforms enabling participation in design hides the social, political, and racial entanglements involved in their creation and expansion (Nakamura 2014; Bridle 2018; Benjamin 2019). The narrative of neutrality conceals the power computer-aided design (CAD) software monopolies hold and absolves them from their negative social effects. It also obscures their values and relations to injustice, racism, and inequality. Another goal of the CAD industry is the continuous ambition for optimization which has gone through phases of form, fabrication, and now data (Marble 2018). Optimization through fabrication in computational architecture and design includes the push for industrial off-site construction with robotics, manufacturing assemblies, and technologies. Optimization through data includes new forms of automation and machine intelligence to free designers from the toll of  repetitive and non-creative tasks. In conversation with the 2021 conference theme, we invite scholarship that seeks to understand and uncover the power relations between (commercial) CAD systems, computational design practices, education, and their reproductions of oppressions at multiple scales. What does optimization really mean, and who benefits? What do we gain and lose in this never-ending goal of optimization and the apparent disappearance of humans from the process? Our goal is to shed light on and conceptualize the power relations between computational design, the built environment, and society.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
Feminist STS scholars have long advocated for a model of social and scientific inquiry that foregrounds social and environmental justice questions and calls on multiple constituents to shape research questions, methods, and outcomes. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing movement of collaborative research centers, laboratories, feminist science shops, and training programs that actively investigate and engage in justice-oriented research practices in order to address racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and structural inequality as an integral part of doing STS research that contributes to collectively building better worlds and fostering good relations. In this panel, organized by the coordinators of the STS Hub at San Francisco State University, we seek to bring together those who have established and participated in these novel initiatives to share research, approaches, achievements, challenges, and the situated practices that have facilitated their collaborative research. By sharing specific projects, practices, protocols, and methods that have emerged from our ongoing efforts, we aim to learn from each other’s labor and insights, to consider ways to collectively document these initiatives, and to create a network of mutual support and solidarity in our efforts to institutionalize more just STS research practices.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
What kinds of data have we produced at the local, national or transnational scale to deal and respond to Covid-19? Over the past year we have grown accustomed to measure, quantify, report, visualize, and account for all aspects of our lives. This has also come with a growing need for “valid” data and what it means to produce, share, circulate, and trust it. The assumption that data, especially more data, will lead to societal betterment is one that tends to pervade both academic conversations in data studies and public discourse. We do not argue against the importance of generating data in the face of local and global problems. Rather, we seek to challenge the assumption that critical analysis of, and intervention into, data infrastructures should happen primarily at the stage of data production. In conversation with citizen science studies the panel argues that data distrust must be taken as an integral part of data infrastructures and capacities—particularly in the context of the global south. This intervention is relevant in that it seeks to destabilize a globally adopted dichotomy that pits people who reject scientific findings against other forms of knowledge. It builds on the contention that data (dis)trust is not a “cultural” attitude of the public, but rather the result of situated processes through which frustration, uncertainty, and cynicism are enacted and produced. We are interested in understanding how data distrust—particularly around health and Covid-19—is produced and mobilized within various and transnational social fields and institutional settings.
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
As digital data continues to rapidly proliferate, sustained by the ever-expanding architecture of the cloud, discussion of “data management” has become ubiquitous. Individuals, institutions, and states are all faced with the onerous work of organizing, culling, and keeping track of their data, raising questions that range from the stakes of self-archiving to the environmental costs of large-scale data storage. This panel proposes a new approach to these now-common problems, asking: does it make sense to talk about data care? 
When we center the people tasked with “managing” data in our analysis, questions of relationality inevitably arise. Is something like care at work when a data center technician sustains terabytes of data through his everyday practice, or saves it in the face of natural disaster? What kind of relating is at play in a researcher’s process of ensuring her data set is “clean”? What do intense affects associated with “data hoarding” and data loss (Dow Schüll 2017) tell us about normative expectations of care? By positing care as a flexible center point in this conversation, we aim to dig deeper into the relationships between people and the data they are responsible for. 
Topics of discussion may include, but are not limited to: 
– Design and maintenance of digital infrastructure
– Questions of data privacy, ownership, and sovereignty
– Emerging frameworks of data health and hygiene
– Non-human and new materialist approaches to data relations
– Gendered histories and practices of data care
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
Biomedicine increasingly relies upon the production, gathering, curation, organization, and sharing of large volumes of data through databases (Chow-White and García-Sancho, 2012). Building upon social studies of computing and biomedicine, this panel investigates data-based biomedicine as it emerges from situated practices of scientific activity. It addresses, but is not limited to, three sets of interrelated questions:
First, what are the socio-historical drivers of these ‘database-ization’ processes? While links between computer and biomedical sciences – particularly in relation to genomics – have been usefully sketched out (García-Sancho, 2011), much remains to be done regarding how biomedical data ‘got its bases’ (Haigh, 2009).
Second, how does data-based biomedicine effectively assemble technological (algorithms, chips, software) and organizational (consortia, standards, benchmarks) configurations, and how is this new ‘style of practice’ (Keating and Cambrosio, 2012) stabilized in a diversity of domains of biomedicine (e.g. cancer, infectious diseases, public health)?
Third, how are data of biological (e.g. ‘omics’ data), biographical and/or social processes (e.g. social capital, social belongings, patient-reported outcomes, scores of psychosocial complexity) assembled into data-based understandings of health and illness? Making data visible and reliable to as many practitioners as possible entails an increasing work to produce, relate, and standardize biomedical and socio-epidemiological data (Bossen et al., 2019). Through what inclusions/exclusions are bio-social ontologies of health emerging from the intelligibility and interoperability of these data?
In parallel to historical focus on path dependencies, the panel invites empirical and conceptual socio-anthropological contributions highlighting the disruptive alignments and frictions (Edwards et al., 2011) that shape data-based biomedicine.
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
From widespread concerns over foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, to the more recent events of the Jan 6, 2021 ‘capitol siege’ in Washington, DC, the security of democratic society appears increasingly in question. Beyond the United States, far-right movements are ascendant, and the success of Brexit has troubled the international liberal order. Central to popular constructions of this ‘democratic insecurity’ has been the decline of traditional information gatekeeping by professional journalists and news media. With the rise of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, new political possibilities have emerged to upset the status quo. While some have emphasized the democratic potential of the online grassroots, others draw attention to the growth of online extremism and its increasing influence on real-world events. Similarly, some have praised the moderation of social media content in the name of public safety, while others see it as a threat to the democratic values of free speech. But these views of ‘democratic insecurity’ are incomplete. Taking unsettled questions concerning the security of democracy, information, and technology, this open panel welcomes submissions that offer fuller accounts of the complex and changing relationship between technology, democracy, and security. We welcome a range of topics from diverse perspectives including:
cyberwarfare and cybersecurity
disinformation, fake news, and ‘post-truth’
online radicalization and extremism
election security
conspiracy theories
social movements
surveillance; failures of surveillance
online communities and ‘real world’ effect
free speech, censorship, and moderation
political economy of news
platform capitalism and alternative platforms
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
In recent years, an emerging concern over the amount of time that people spend in front of screens has led to pathologizing models of digital device use (i.e., “digital addiction”). Scientific research and corporate programs, such as Google’s Digital Wellbeing app or Apple’s Screen Time app, have constructed digital wellness, positing an ideal amount of digital device use, while also generating new understandings to expertise of “healthy” productivity, digital forms of parental supervision, and combatting physical fatigue, depression, and burnout.
Although engineers and psychologists have turned toward descriptions of digital overuse and addiction, other scholars have turned toward the so-called attention economy. While both groups of scholars may be critical of tech industry exploitation of users, they also tend to reinforce akratic models of users. In addition, the entanglements between digital wellness and health remain wedded to surveillance–especially through infrastructures for data collection and body tracking.
We seek papers that reevaluate digital wellbeing from a critical STS perspective and center aspects of social inequality inherent in digital wellness discourses. Topics may include: discourses surrounding home surveillance, children, and screens; the relationship between COVID-19 and screen time debates; digital labor and its relation to the possibilities and limits of political futures; how digital wellbeing experts and the psy-disciplines construct digital addiction; the relationship of digital wellness to the gig economy, platform labor, digital inequalities and global divides; or how digital wellbeing could be politicized and collectivized as a form of mutual aid and good relations.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
Disparities and oppression are evident in migrants’ everyday lives, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of international migrants in 2019 approached 272 million, with 80 million forcibly displaced worldwide. As people move, or are restricted from movement, reliance on digital tools has grown to support social, academic, economic, and health dimensions of life. Remote data collection measures to conduct research with migrants and about migration is necessary to identify problems, support communities, and understand the complex social, technological, and political-economy of the changing world. This panel will focus on the critical questions that surface when conducting remote and/or digital research with migratory communities, broadly defined.
We aim to generate discussion about how or where the use of digital technology to collect research data might reproduce or interrupt colonial relations and dynamics of power. These can occur between researchers and participants, between differently situated participant groups, across research teams, or, throughout larger institutional systems of research and practice. How can we identify and better understand techno-colonial power and resistance in the adoption of digital data collection in migration research? How can digital research methods be used to foster participatory and/or anti-oppressive practices across time and place, related to race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and/or ability? How can an ‘ethics of care’ be applied to digital research? This open panel will bring together scholarship adopting digital data collection techniques, considering how to foster good relations across the axes of technology, research, power, privilege, and oppression in migration studies.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
The lockdown experiences linked to Covid-19 have highlighted the central place of digital technologies in our daily lives. Access to rights, contacts with relatives, teleworking, eHealth: countless areas have been impacted. This context has given new impetus to the desire to deploy inclusive digital technologies. Beyond the issue of Internet access, the question of digital uses is becoming more central.
This call intends to bring together works that concern digital inclusion in practices. Contributions may deal with the following sets of questions:
1. Accompanying digital uses
According to what dynamics and what aims have digital inclusion mechanisms been put in place? Which actors are involved and which audiences are targeted? What are the accompaniment practices and postures? What place is given to the autonomy of persons?
2. Becoming digitally literate
How can the acquisition of digital skills be described? Can it be compared with the learning of other skills? What are the contours of “digital grammar” and what are the signs of its mastery?
3. Normatively framing digital uses
Do digital inclusion professionals have a dialogue with deviance specialists? What references and cultures, whether technical, legal or medical for instance, do they draw on in order to guide towards “good” uses of technologies? How is responsibility distributed among the different actors (parents, other careers, designers, etc.)?
This panel will privilege empirically-based contributions that favor a situated, relational, process-based and symmetrical approach of digital inclusion by taking into account both the point of view of accompanying people and of those accompanied.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Ours is a time of division and fractures—a time of crises. Given the urgent problems we must face, there is no guarantee on predicting how the agents involved, both human and other-than-human, will respond, let alone forcing one set of conditions upon them, or using them at will. In fact, we can only be certain of the divergence of obligations and requirements of the diverse parts involved (Stengers 2011).
The unstable and heterogeneous landscape of current and urgent problems calls for a radically different role for scientific practices. In this new role, they should aim to neutralize divergences, securing one expert consensual take, but rather strive to take part in a heterogeneous and ecological assembly. If we don’t take scientific practices nor the experts that they produce to be the great deciders, what role should they play? How should they behave? In what terms must they present themselves?
This is the central problem of diplomacy, as Isabelle Stengers (2005, 2020) understands it. Diplomacy is a device to render different voices equal –not interchangeable, but equally present. A diplomatic practice comes out from a group and does not necessarily seek a common ground, but merely to add their voice to the process of making a difficult decision. Our aim is to consider the political impact that different practices –related to ecological and social problems, multispecies conversations, methodological aspects of STS, or others– could have and how would they behave when rooted in diplomacy.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The cosmopolitical proposal”. In B. Latour & P. Weibel, eds. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics I. Translated by Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2020. Réactiver le sens commun. Lecture de Whitehead en temps de débâcle. Paris: La Découverte.
Recent events worldwide have shown the relevance of interdisciplinary approaches to cope with uncertainty: the current pandemic and sanitary crisis, social and political protests, climate emergency -among many others- prove the need to think—and act —in novel and creative ways. More than disciplines examining phenomena from different standpoints, innovative interdisciplinary approaches need to conceptualize past and emerging problems from assemblages at the interaction of various fields. In this way, effective interdisciplinary studies could contribute to understanding our world from a more complex, dense, and purposeful perspective.
At the crossroads of society and science, STS offers a strong potential to trespass traditional knowledge production boundaries. This panel seeks to explore the role of “disciplinary translations” in studying science and societies. Disciplinary translations refer to the transfer of concepts, ideas, frameworks produced in science and applied to understand social dilemmas and vice versa. To mention just a few examples, there have been experiences of applying complex models of physics to understand social networks; chaos theory to study social behaviors in crowds; chemical transformations in matter to analyze historical processes. This panel aims to bring together proposals from different fields exploring this post-disciplinary approach to both science and society. Additionally, the purpose of this panel is to discuss how STS could contribute to shaping both compelling and effective interdisciplinary knowledge production.
Recent events worldwide have shown the relevance of interdisciplinary approaches to cope with uncertainty: the current pandemic and sanitary crisis, social and political protests, climate emergency -among many others- prove the need to think—and act —in novel and creative ways. More than disciplines examining phenomena from different standpoints, innovative interdisciplinary approaches need to conceptualize past and emerging problems from assemblages at the interaction of various fields. In this way, effective interdisciplinary studies could contribute to understanding our world from a more complex, dense, and purposeful perspective.
At the crossroads of society and science, STS offers a strong potential to trespass traditional knowledge production boundaries. This panel seeks to explore the role of “disciplinary translations” in studying science and societies. Disciplinary translations refer to the transfer of concepts, ideas, frameworks produced in science and applied to understand social dilemmas and vice versa. To mention just a few examples, there have been experiences of applying complex models of physics to understand social networks; chaos theory to study social behaviors in crowds; chemical transformations in matter to analyze historical processes. This panel aims to bring together proposals from different fields exploring this post-disciplinary approach to both science and society. Additionally, the purpose of this panel is to discuss how STS could contribute to shaping both compelling and effective interdisciplinary knowledge production.
Recent events worldwide have shown the relevance of interdisciplinary approaches to cope with uncertainty: the current pandemic and sanitary crisis, social and political protests, climate emergency -among many others- prove the need to think—and act —in novel and creative ways. More than disciplines examining phenomena from different standpoints, innovative interdisciplinary approaches need to conceptualize past and emerging problems from assemblages at the interaction of various fields. In this way, effective interdisciplinary studies could contribute to understanding our world from a more complex, dense, and purposeful perspective.
At the crossroads of society and science, STS offers a strong potential to trespass traditional knowledge production boundaries. This panel seeks to explore the role of “disciplinary translations” in studying science and societies. Disciplinary translations refer to the transfer of concepts, ideas, frameworks produced in science and applied to understand social dilemmas and vice versa. To mention just a few examples, there have been experiences of applying complex models of physics to understand social networks; chaos theory to study social behaviors in crowds; chemical transformations in matter to analyze historical processes. This panel aims to bring together proposals from different fields exploring this post-disciplinary approach to both science and society. Additionally, the purpose of this panel is to discuss how STS could contribute to shaping both compelling and effective interdisciplinary knowledge production.
Recent events worldwide have shown the relevance of interdisciplinary approaches to cope with uncertainty: the current pandemic and sanitary crisis, social and political protests, climate emergency -among many others- prove the need to think—and act —in novel and creative ways. More than disciplines examining phenomena from different standpoints, innovative interdisciplinary approaches need to conceptualize past and emerging problems from assemblages at the interaction of various fields. In this way, effective interdisciplinary studies could contribute to understanding our world from a more complex, dense, and purposeful perspective.
At the crossroads of society and science, STS offers a strong potential to trespass traditional knowledge production boundaries. This panel seeks to explore the role of “disciplinary translations” in studying science and societies. Disciplinary translations refer to the transfer of concepts, ideas, frameworks produced in science and applied to understand social dilemmas and vice versa. To mention just a few examples, there have been experiences of applying complex models of physics to understand social networks; chaos theory to study social behaviors in crowds; chemical transformations in matter to analyze historical processes. This panel aims to bring together proposals from different fields exploring this post-disciplinary approach to both science and society. Additionally, the purpose of this panel is to discuss how STS could contribute to shaping both compelling and effective interdisciplinary knowledge production.
Recent events worldwide have shown the relevance of interdisciplinary approaches to cope with uncertainty: the current pandemic and sanitary crisis, social and political protests, climate emergency -among many others- prove the need to think—and act —in novel and creative ways. More than disciplines examining phenomena from different standpoints, innovative interdisciplinary approaches need to conceptualize past and emerging problems from assemblages at the interaction of various fields. In this way, effective interdisciplinary studies could contribute to understanding our world from a more complex, dense, and purposeful perspective.
At the crossroads of society and science, STS offers a strong potential to trespass traditional knowledge production boundaries. This panel seeks to explore the role of “disciplinary translations” in studying science and societies. Disciplinary translations refer to the transfer of concepts, ideas, frameworks produced in science and applied to understand social dilemmas and vice versa. To mention just a few examples, there have been experiences of applying complex models of physics to understand social networks; chaos theory to study social behaviors in crowds; chemical transformations in matter to analyze historical processes. This panel aims to bring together proposals from different fields exploring this post-disciplinary approach to both science and society. Additionally, the purpose of this panel is to discuss how STS could contribute to shaping both compelling and effective interdisciplinary knowledge production.
Recent events worldwide have shown the relevance of interdisciplinary approaches to cope with uncertainty: the current pandemic and sanitary crisis, social and political protests, climate emergency -among many others- prove the need to think—and act —in novel and creative ways. More than disciplines examining phenomena from different standpoints, innovative interdisciplinary approaches need to conceptualize past and emerging problems from assemblages at the interaction of various fields. In this way, effective interdisciplinary studies could contribute to understanding our world from a more complex, dense, and purposeful perspective.
At the crossroads of society and science, STS offers a strong potential to trespass traditional knowledge production boundaries. This panel seeks to explore the role of “disciplinary translations” in studying science and societies. Disciplinary translations refer to the transfer of concepts, ideas, frameworks produced in science and applied to understand social dilemmas and vice versa. To mention just a few examples, there have been experiences of applying complex models of physics to understand social networks; chaos theory to study social behaviors in crowds; chemical transformations in matter to analyze historical processes. This panel aims to bring together proposals from different fields exploring this post-disciplinary approach to both science and society. Additionally, the purpose of this panel is to discuss how STS could contribute to shaping both compelling and effective interdisciplinary knowledge production.
Recent events worldwide have shown the relevance of interdisciplinary approaches to cope with uncertainty: the current pandemic and sanitary crisis, social and political protests, climate emergency -among many others- prove the need to think—and act —in novel and creative ways. More than disciplines examining phenomena from different standpoints, innovative interdisciplinary approaches need to conceptualize past and emerging problems from assemblages at the interaction of various fields. In this way, effective interdisciplinary studies could contribute to understanding our world from a more complex, dense, and purposeful perspective.
At the crossroads of society and science, STS offers a strong potential to trespass traditional knowledge production boundaries. This panel seeks to explore the role of “disciplinary translations” in studying science and societies. Disciplinary translations refer to the transfer of concepts, ideas, frameworks produced in science and applied to understand social dilemmas and vice versa. To mention just a few examples, there have been experiences of applying complex models of physics to understand social networks; chaos theory to study social behaviors in crowds; chemical transformations in matter to analyze historical processes. This panel aims to bring together proposals from different fields exploring this post-disciplinary approach to both science and society. Additionally, the purpose of this panel is to discuss how STS could contribute to shaping both compelling and effective interdisciplinary knowledge production.
Recent events worldwide have shown the relevance of interdisciplinary approaches to cope with uncertainty: the current pandemic and sanitary crisis, social and political protests, climate emergency -among many others- prove the need to think—and act —in novel and creative ways. More than disciplines examining phenomena from different standpoints, innovative interdisciplinary approaches need to conceptualize past and emerging problems from assemblages at the interaction of various fields. In this way, effective interdisciplinary studies could contribute to understanding our world from a more complex, dense, and purposeful perspective.
At the crossroads of society and science, STS offers a strong potential to trespass traditional knowledge production boundaries. This panel seeks to explore the role of “disciplinary translations” in studying science and societies. Disciplinary translations refer to the transfer of concepts, ideas, frameworks produced in science and applied to understand social dilemmas and vice versa. To mention just a few examples, there have been experiences of applying complex models of physics to understand social networks; chaos theory to study social behaviors in crowds; chemical transformations in matter to analyze historical processes. This panel aims to bring together proposals from different fields exploring this post-disciplinary approach to both science and society. Additionally, the purpose of this panel is to discuss how STS could contribute to shaping both compelling and effective interdisciplinary knowledge production.
Recent events worldwide have shown the relevance of interdisciplinary approaches to cope with uncertainty: the current pandemic and sanitary crisis, social and political protests, climate emergency -among many others- prove the need to think—and act —in novel and creative ways. More than disciplines examining phenomena from different standpoints, innovative interdisciplinary approaches need to conceptualize past and emerging problems from assemblages at the interaction of various fields. In this way, effective interdisciplinary studies could contribute to understanding our world from a more complex, dense, and purposeful perspective.
At the crossroads of society and science, STS offers a strong potential to trespass traditional knowledge production boundaries. This panel seeks to explore the role of “disciplinary translations” in studying science and societies. Disciplinary translations refer to the transfer of concepts, ideas, frameworks produced in science and applied to understand social dilemmas and vice versa. To mention just a few examples, there have been experiences of applying complex models of physics to understand social networks; chaos theory to study social behaviors in crowds; chemical transformations in matter to analyze historical processes. This panel aims to bring together proposals from different fields exploring this post-disciplinary approach to both science and society. Additionally, the purpose of this panel is to discuss how STS could contribute to shaping both compelling and effective interdisciplinary knowledge production.
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
Through the theme of Diseased Landscapes, this panel explores how the nexus of extractivism and political conflict affects environmental and human health. It aims at bringing  together efforts in scholarly practice—including art-based methodologies and activist-oriented research—to historically, politically, and socially situate disease, toxins, pathogens, non-humans, and bodily dysfunction in violent geographies produced by legal and illegal extractivism. We ask how the health conditions of the environment and the body become entangled in places dominated by extractivist economies. What difference does it make to tell stories of armed violence, gendered and racialized dispossession, capitalism, mining, and agrarian expansion through human and more-than-human experiences of health and illness? How are evidence and ignorance about bodies and landscapes produced, used, and abused in contexts marked by extractivist activities? And finally, what practices, methods, and interventions are helpful to establish good relations, capable of disrupting the combined production of disease and violence in old, new, and future territories of extraction?
The relationship between technology, disempowerment, and empowerment is indisputable, but complex. Technologies of warfare have helped maintain unequal power relationships throughout history, while diffusion of technology has enabled mass literacy and widespread health care. “Power and AI” is a common subject in media today, often through a public policy lens, but is less often addressed in technology narratives.
The panel is initiated by the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology and the IEEE Standards Association’s Ethically Aligned Design. IEEE is a professional association of technologists with 420,000 members in 160 countries.
We are seeking to build an open community looking at empowerment and disempowerment in the development of technologies today.
The panel will be structured around three aspects: the historical legacy of disempowerment including long-standing structural oppression, which frames our technology development today; the current forms through which technology contributes to the creation and maintenance of power relations today; and issues which those developing technology should consider when seeking to create technologies which empower communities, rather than disempowering them. This has particular importance in the development of autonomous and intelligent systems.
While related to discussions of ethical design in technology, considerations of power and technology are distinct, drawing directly on the work of anthropologists, sociologists and other social scientists, legal practitioners, and those in the humanities, among others. The panel will provide insights and guidance to those developing technology, from policy framers to implementation practitioners, and we invite those interested to take part.
The relationship between technology, disempowerment, and empowerment is indisputable, but complex. Technologies of warfare have helped maintain unequal power relationships throughout history, while diffusion of technology has enabled mass literacy and widespread health care. “Power and AI” is a common subject in media today, often through a public policy lens, but is less often addressed in technology narratives.
The panel is initiated by the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology and the IEEE Standards Association’s Ethically Aligned Design. IEEE is a professional association of technologists with 420,000 members in 160 countries.
We are seeking to build an open community looking at empowerment and disempowerment in the development of technologies today.
The panel will be structured around three aspects: the historical legacy of disempowerment including long-standing structural oppression, which frames our technology development today; the current forms through which technology contributes to the creation and maintenance of power relations today; and issues which those developing technology should consider when seeking to create technologies which empower communities, rather than disempowering them. This has particular importance in the development of autonomous and intelligent systems.
While related to discussions of ethical design in technology, considerations of power and technology are distinct, drawing directly on the work of anthropologists, sociologists and other social scientists, legal practitioners, and those in the humanities, among others. The panel will provide insights and guidance to those developing technology, from policy framers to implementation practitioners, and we invite those interested to take part.
The relationship between technology, disempowerment, and empowerment is indisputable, but complex. Technologies of warfare have helped maintain unequal power relationships throughout history, while diffusion of technology has enabled mass literacy and widespread health care. “Power and AI” is a common subject in media today, often through a public policy lens, but is less often addressed in technology narratives.
The panel is initiated by the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology and the IEEE Standards Association’s Ethically Aligned Design. IEEE is a professional association of technologists with 420,000 members in 160 countries.
We are seeking to build an open community looking at empowerment and disempowerment in the development of technologies today.
The panel will be structured around three aspects: the historical legacy of disempowerment including long-standing structural oppression, which frames our technology development today; the current forms through which technology contributes to the creation and maintenance of power relations today; and issues which those developing technology should consider when seeking to create technologies which empower communities, rather than disempowering them. This has particular importance in the development of autonomous and intelligent systems.
While related to discussions of ethical design in technology, considerations of power and technology are distinct, drawing directly on the work of anthropologists, sociologists and other social scientists, legal practitioners, and those in the humanities, among others. The panel will provide insights and guidance to those developing technology, from policy framers to implementation practitioners, and we invite those interested to take part.
The relationship between technology, disempowerment, and empowerment is indisputable, but complex. Technologies of warfare have helped maintain unequal power relationships throughout history, while diffusion of technology has enabled mass literacy and widespread health care. “Power and AI” is a common subject in media today, often through a public policy lens, but is less often addressed in technology narratives.
The panel is initiated by the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology and the IEEE Standards Association’s Ethically Aligned Design. IEEE is a professional association of technologists with 420,000 members in 160 countries.
We are seeking to build an open community looking at empowerment and disempowerment in the development of technologies today.
The panel will be structured around three aspects: the historical legacy of disempowerment including long-standing structural oppression, which frames our technology development today; the current forms through which technology contributes to the creation and maintenance of power relations today; and issues which those developing technology should consider when seeking to create technologies which empower communities, rather than disempowering them. This has particular importance in the development of autonomous and intelligent systems.
While related to discussions of ethical design in technology, considerations of power and technology are distinct, drawing directly on the work of anthropologists, sociologists and other social scientists, legal practitioners, and those in the humanities, among others. The panel will provide insights and guidance to those developing technology, from policy framers to implementation practitioners, and we invite those interested to take part.
The relationship between technology, disempowerment, and empowerment is indisputable, but complex. Technologies of warfare have helped maintain unequal power relationships throughout history, while diffusion of technology has enabled mass literacy and widespread health care. “Power and AI” is a common subject in media today, often through a public policy lens, but is less often addressed in technology narratives.
The panel is initiated by the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology and the IEEE Standards Association’s Ethically Aligned Design. IEEE is a professional association of technologists with 420,000 members in 160 countries.
We are seeking to build an open community looking at empowerment and disempowerment in the development of technologies today.
The panel will be structured around three aspects: the historical legacy of disempowerment including long-standing structural oppression, which frames our technology development today; the current forms through which technology contributes to the creation and maintenance of power relations today; and issues which those developing technology should consider when seeking to create technologies which empower communities, rather than disempowering them. This has particular importance in the development of autonomous and intelligent systems.
While related to discussions of ethical design in technology, considerations of power and technology are distinct, drawing directly on the work of anthropologists, sociologists and other social scientists, legal practitioners, and those in the humanities, among others. The panel will provide insights and guidance to those developing technology, from policy framers to implementation practitioners, and we invite those interested to take part.
The relationship between technology, disempowerment, and empowerment is indisputable, but complex. Technologies of warfare have helped maintain unequal power relationships throughout history, while diffusion of technology has enabled mass literacy and widespread health care. “Power and AI” is a common subject in media today, often through a public policy lens, but is less often addressed in technology narratives.
The panel is initiated by the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology and the IEEE Standards Association’s Ethically Aligned Design. IEEE is a professional association of technologists with 420,000 members in 160 countries.
We are seeking to build an open community looking at empowerment and disempowerment in the development of technologies today.
The panel will be structured around three aspects: the historical legacy of disempowerment including long-standing structural oppression, which frames our technology development today; the current forms through which technology contributes to the creation and maintenance of power relations today; and issues which those developing technology should consider when seeking to create technologies which empower communities, rather than disempowering them. This has particular importance in the development of autonomous and intelligent systems.
While related to discussions of ethical design in technology, considerations of power and technology are distinct, drawing directly on the work of anthropologists, sociologists and other social scientists, legal practitioners, and those in the humanities, among others. The panel will provide insights and guidance to those developing technology, from policy framers to implementation practitioners, and we invite those interested to take part.
The relationship between technology, disempowerment, and empowerment is indisputable, but complex. Technologies of warfare have helped maintain unequal power relationships throughout history, while diffusion of technology has enabled mass literacy and widespread health care. “Power and AI” is a common subject in media today, often through a public policy lens, but is less often addressed in technology narratives.
The panel is initiated by the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology and the IEEE Standards Association’s Ethically Aligned Design. IEEE is a professional association of technologists with 420,000 members in 160 countries.
We are seeking to build an open community looking at empowerment and disempowerment in the development of technologies today.
The panel will be structured around three aspects: the historical legacy of disempowerment including long-standing structural oppression, which frames our technology development today; the current forms through which technology contributes to the creation and maintenance of power relations today; and issues which those developing technology should consider when seeking to create technologies which empower communities, rather than disempowering them. This has particular importance in the development of autonomous and intelligent systems.
While related to discussions of ethical design in technology, considerations of power and technology are distinct, drawing directly on the work of anthropologists, sociologists and other social scientists, legal practitioners, and those in the humanities, among others. The panel will provide insights and guidance to those developing technology, from policy framers to implementation practitioners, and we invite those interested to take part.
The relationship between technology, disempowerment, and empowerment is indisputable, but complex. Technologies of warfare have helped maintain unequal power relationships throughout history, while diffusion of technology has enabled mass literacy and widespread health care. “Power and AI” is a common subject in media today, often through a public policy lens, but is less often addressed in technology narratives.
The panel is initiated by the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology and the IEEE Standards Association’s Ethically Aligned Design. IEEE is a professional association of technologists with 420,000 members in 160 countries.
We are seeking to build an open community looking at empowerment and disempowerment in the development of technologies today.
The panel will be structured around three aspects: the historical legacy of disempowerment including long-standing structural oppression, which frames our technology development today; the current forms through which technology contributes to the creation and maintenance of power relations today; and issues which those developing technology should consider when seeking to create technologies which empower communities, rather than disempowering them. This has particular importance in the development of autonomous and intelligent systems.
While related to discussions of ethical design in technology, considerations of power and technology are distinct, drawing directly on the work of anthropologists, sociologists and other social scientists, legal practitioners, and those in the humanities, among others. The panel will provide insights and guidance to those developing technology, from policy framers to implementation practitioners, and we invite those interested to take part.
The relationship between technology, disempowerment, and empowerment is indisputable, but complex. Technologies of warfare have helped maintain unequal power relationships throughout history, while diffusion of technology has enabled mass literacy and widespread health care. “Power and AI” is a common subject in media today, often through a public policy lens, but is less often addressed in technology narratives.
The panel is initiated by the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology and the IEEE Standards Association’s Ethically Aligned Design. IEEE is a professional association of technologists with 420,000 members in 160 countries.
We are seeking to build an open community looking at empowerment and disempowerment in the development of technologies today.
The panel will be structured around three aspects: the historical legacy of disempowerment including long-standing structural oppression, which frames our technology development today; the current forms through which technology contributes to the creation and maintenance of power relations today; and issues which those developing technology should consider when seeking to create technologies which empower communities, rather than disempowering them. This has particular importance in the development of autonomous and intelligent systems.
While related to discussions of ethical design in technology, considerations of power and technology are distinct, drawing directly on the work of anthropologists, sociologists and other social scientists, legal practitioners, and those in the humanities, among others. The panel will provide insights and guidance to those developing technology, from policy framers to implementation practitioners, and we invite those interested to take part.
The relationship between technology, disempowerment, and empowerment is indisputable, but complex. Technologies of warfare have helped maintain unequal power relationships throughout history, while diffusion of technology has enabled mass literacy and widespread health care. “Power and AI” is a common subject in media today, often through a public policy lens, but is less often addressed in technology narratives.
The panel is initiated by the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology and the IEEE Standards Association’s Ethically Aligned Design. IEEE is a professional association of technologists with 420,000 members in 160 countries.
We are seeking to build an open community looking at empowerment and disempowerment in the development of technologies today.
The panel will be structured around three aspects: the historical legacy of disempowerment including long-standing structural oppression, which frames our technology development today; the current forms through which technology contributes to the creation and maintenance of power relations today; and issues which those developing technology should consider when seeking to create technologies which empower communities, rather than disempowering them. This has particular importance in the development of autonomous and intelligent systems.
While related to discussions of ethical design in technology, considerations of power and technology are distinct, drawing directly on the work of anthropologists, sociologists and other social scientists, legal practitioners, and those in the humanities, among others. The panel will provide insights and guidance to those developing technology, from policy framers to implementation practitioners, and we invite those interested to take part.
The relationship between technology, disempowerment, and empowerment is indisputable, but complex. Technologies of warfare have helped maintain unequal power relationships throughout history, while diffusion of technology has enabled mass literacy and widespread health care. “Power and AI” is a common subject in media today, often through a public policy lens, but is less often addressed in technology narratives.
The panel is initiated by the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology and the IEEE Standards Association’s Ethically Aligned Design. IEEE is a professional association of technologists with 420,000 members in 160 countries.
We are seeking to build an open community looking at empowerment and disempowerment in the development of technologies today.
The panel will be structured around three aspects: the historical legacy of disempowerment including long-standing structural oppression, which frames our technology development today; the current forms through which technology contributes to the creation and maintenance of power relations today; and issues which those developing technology should consider when seeking to create technologies which empower communities, rather than disempowering them. This has particular importance in the development of autonomous and intelligent systems.
While related to discussions of ethical design in technology, considerations of power and technology are distinct, drawing directly on the work of anthropologists, sociologists and other social scientists, legal practitioners, and those in the humanities, among others. The panel will provide insights and guidance to those developing technology, from policy framers to implementation practitioners, and we invite those interested to take part.
The relationship between technology, disempowerment, and empowerment is indisputable, but complex. Technologies of warfare have helped maintain unequal power relationships throughout history, while diffusion of technology has enabled mass literacy and widespread health care. “Power and AI” is a common subject in media today, often through a public policy lens, but is less often addressed in technology narratives.
The panel is initiated by the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology and the IEEE Standards Association’s Ethically Aligned Design. IEEE is a professional association of technologists with 420,000 members in 160 countries.
We are seeking to build an open community looking at empowerment and disempowerment in the development of technologies today.
The panel will be structured around three aspects: the historical legacy of disempowerment including long-standing structural oppression, which frames our technology development today; the current forms through which technology contributes to the creation and maintenance of power relations today; and issues which those developing technology should consider when seeking to create technologies which empower communities, rather than disempowering them. This has particular importance in the development of autonomous and intelligent systems.
While related to discussions of ethical design in technology, considerations of power and technology are distinct, drawing directly on the work of anthropologists, sociologists and other social scientists, legal practitioners, and those in the humanities, among others. The panel will provide insights and guidance to those developing technology, from policy framers to implementation practitioners, and we invite those interested to take part.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This experimental panel is intended to bring together artists, writers, musicians, and/or performers alongside STS scholars to explore the role of the nonlinear, the nonverbal, the intuitive, and the gestural in deepening our understanding of climate change, bringing to light potential solutions, and creating vocabulary and rituals for grief and mourning. Likewise, the panel is also intended to connect creative practice to STS in order to find our way past the constrictions of academic hierarchies and boundaries in order to “strive towards good relations as humans, with technologies, in our modes of knowing, within environments, across distance, and with other-than-humans” (4S2021 Conference Theme). The goal is for several short (10-20 minutes each) live performances, dances, readings, or artist presentations to be “staged” alongside complimentary STS research in ways that give permission for the nonlinear and nonquantifiable to matter as much as the logical and measurable. The “creative” panelists can be professional or nonprofessional artists; the STS scholars can also present a creative performance. Perfection is not expected; learning from the process as both giver and receiver is what matters.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel invites papers that studies efforts to make engineering and engineering education more inclusive, diverse and caring.  Engineers engage in design, development, testing, modifying, installing, inspecting, monitoring and maintaining a wide variety of infrastructures, systems and products. They make recommendations, evaluate, supervise, consult and some of them teach future engineers in colleges and universities. Engineers potentially play a pivotal role in designing for a more diverse, inclusive and caring society in the future.
We call for papers that analyze attempts to make engineering more diverse and/or caring. This could be efforts to redefine engineering practices or engineering education. Broadly speaking, this include studies of initiatives to transform engineering practices, organizations and cultures to make them more caring, ethical, diverse and inclusive and thus helping to develop a more sustainable society that protect people, cultures, communities and environments. It also invites papers about how to make engineering more welcome and inclusive for groups and minorities. It also welcomes paper discussing the need to change the understanding of engineering and what engineers are for, what changes that are called for, and what this may mean for engineering identities. Further, we welcome critical reflections on research practices, methodologies, language and perceptions in engineering studies, including the performativity of engineering studies and reflections on what represent good relations for engineering as well as reflections on how the field may configure engineers and engineering work and education.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
This panel explores what we expect of scientists when we talk about care, particularly in the
context of practical applications of STS such as training, education, or interdisciplinary research. Much has been written of late about care as a way of figuring responsible relationships and practices in science. Care is proposed as an organising device which, in acknowledging the interdependence of humans and nonhumans and the diversity of their needs, can promote attention to those needs and the development of more compassionate and nurturing worlds. This notion of care is inspiring, but what do we actually expect of scientists when we ask that they care? 
In this panel, we aim to explore encounters between scientific and STS communities where our expectations that scientists care are made explicit. These encounters might consist of
responsible research and innovation training, interdisciplinary research, ethnographic work,
teaching, or other avenues where we foreground our expectations that scientists care. The aim is to try to bring our expectations into focus, helping us to better engage with scientists and to work alongside them to develop more caring worlds.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, arts-based, or activist work which explores care expectations in, e.g., learning outcomes, assessment frameworks, speculative work, or reflexive work.
Contributions might address issues such as:
 the tensions between individual and institutional responsibility,
 the issues associated with the gendered, raced, and (dis)abled emotional labour involved in care,
 the uneven capacities of different career-stage researchers to care,
 the differing meanings of care across communities, disciplines, and cultures.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
The goal of this panel is to address the role time and temporality in knowledge production in science and technology. The foundational assumption for doing so is to  shift the basis for time studies in the human and social sciences, even in parts of natural sciences, and challenge the centuries-old metaphysics that time is in reality abstract, universal, and intangible. Abstract time lives on in different forms: as a dimension of reality (Newton), a form of cognition (Kant), as an object of 20th- and 21st-century physics (Smolin, Barbour), or simply, in every-day time management practices, like clocks and calendars. This panel aims to offer an innovative approach. It aims to explore the opposite assumption: that time is always concrete, local, and tangible, ordered and re-ordered, made up of practices, materials, technologies, i.e. humans and nonhumans. Time – particularly its “ownership” – is also a critical parameter structuring power relations in knowledge production. Time is what we do when we measure, manage, or conceptualize orders of succession and change, but also everything that is involved in them. These practices exist and can be understood without recourse to any real, absolute, hidden time, accessible only to God or physicists.  The panel thus invites presentations that explore these doings and makings of time, as a way of generating a new STS-laden approaches to time; time, which is also nominalist, empiricist, and historicist. The panel’s other objective is to follow and expand on several successful time-oriented panels that took place in Boston, Sydney, New Orleans and Prague.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.