This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Social struggles for the recognition of Rights of Nature (RoN) cast new light on core STS concerns regarding knowledge, expertise, plurality and multiple modernities. A legal reformulation of what counts as Nature – coupled with the demand that ecosystems have a right to exist and regenerate – the RoN concept presents radical new challenges, opportunities, and questions for how science, society, and the natural world interact. RoN have the potential to transform scientists’ work and relationship to nature and thus to fundamentally reshape scientific knowledge production.
As more domains around the world consider and enshrine different forms of RoN – for example, in Ecuador, India, Chile, Florida (USA), Australia, Philippines, New Zealand – this panel brings together work that draws on STS insights to better understand how these legal, ontological, and epistemological changes affect our understanding of (and practices and methods for sustaining) good relations (e.g., Yaka 2019). 
Drawing on critiques of development (e.g., Acosta 2010), movements for RoN advocate rights that protect the wellbeing of a broader range of beings, relations, and kin – both in the present and in the future. We welcome contributions that reflect on these issues and questions such as: how are the contours of rationalist science redefined when its practices recognize nature as a rights-bearing subject? Does advancing the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural sciences reshape and correct historic, systemic injustices or, conversely, exacerbate ongoing historical trends of erasure and co-optation (Temper 2019)?
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
Energy systems are in a state of flux. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse of oil and destabilized energy economies have forced the world’s energopolitical regimes (Boyer 2019) to grapple with new and evolving demands on and for energy infrastructures. These geopolitical shifts signal both emerging windows of opportunity and causes for concern, as the ethical plateaus that have come to define contemporary energy ecologies rupture at their fault lines. 
The growing set of diverse conceptual complements with which energy is often paired (e.g., energy rights, energy vulnerability, energy democracy, energy transitions, etc.) betray different assumptions about the scales and systems of relevance to energy politics and to processes of sociotechnical change. Energy justice, by contrast, calls for a more holistic view of the ethics informed by unique energy ecologies—i.e. the historically and culturally specific modes of relating to one’s self, to other humans, to non-human life, and to the environment through one’s relationship to energy and energy infrastructures. This means that more nuanced attention is needed to account for and enact just energy relations in situ.  
We welcome papers that develop empirical or theoretical takes on energy justice by attending to the subtleties of the ethical conundrums posed by complex energy ecologies. We are particularly interested in papers that advance feminist and anti-racist analysis, critique white supremacy and settler colonialism, and/or leverage transnational frameworks to think through the ethical plateaus of energy justice.
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
The landscape of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) is constantly evolving, not only as health practices but also as a research field and as an object of knowledge. So far, much of social science research about TCAM has focused in individual use and on various aspects of professionalization and integration in conventional health care. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring TCAM from STS perspectives. For example, how can we understand aspects of knowledge production, professionalization, standardization, legitimacy, ethics, globalization, and integration of TCAM – if focusing on material practices, hybridity, actor networks, social worlds or boundary work?
In this panel we welcome papers on various aspects of TCAM. In particular we invite papers that target the role of STS theories and methods in studying TCAM. Papers could include e.g. the following themes:
•	Knowledge production and knowledge systems in TCAM
•	TCAM at university: teaching, research and institutions
•	Contestation of biomedicine related to TCAM, vaccine hesitancy and other lifestyles
•	Resistance of medicalization and technologization in TCAM modalities
•	Public understanding of science within TCAM modalities
•	TCAM healers and practitioners in biomedical settings
•	Technologies within TCAM
•	The relation and integration of TCAM with evidence-based medicine
•	The interplay between lay knowledge and expert knowledge in TCAM
•	Hidden and/or suppressed knowledges (of e.g. women or traditional healers) within TCAM
•	Challenges of expertise and expert knowledge related to TCAM
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
As in other areas of public policy, isomorphism is a recurrent trait in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). Countries submitted to similar economic global forces, pressures exercised by multilateral organizations, and increasingly transnationalized politicians, bureaucracies and epistemic communities contribute to the design of STIP in non-hegemonic countries that are remarkably similar in rationales, goals and instruments to the ones created by central capitalist economies. Consider, for instance, the blossoming of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies programs around the world in the 2000s, or the relentless impulse to innovation (and its adjectives) as the main goal of STIP over the last two decades or so. Quite often, such policies have limited effectiveness, due to local funding scarcity, lesser previous development of scientific capacities, implementation pitfalls, discontinuity or, even, because foreign-inspired policy designs do not address adequately local problems, actors and contexts. However, policy adaptation, translation and even contestation occur, processes that change originally similar policy designs in diverse directions. In the spirit of the 4S Conference theme, in this panel we want to explore methods and practices of designing, adapting, translating and challenging centrally produced STIP models in non-hegemonic countries and assess such practices in terms of their adequacy to address local problems. We invite scholars and graduate students to discuss STIP through case or comparative studies, in national and transnational settings, and using diverse methodologies.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
While sport studies scholars have established sport as a key site of cultural meanings and social relations, fewer scholars have engaged these issues within technology and science studies frameworks. This intersection of critical sport, science, and technology studies is key to understanding their current and future collisions and impacts, particularly in this moment of increasing technoscientific proliferation and practice.
This panel invites papers broadly concerned with social and cultural inquiry into the intersection of science, technology, and sport. Potential topics include, but are not limited to: sport analytics, data science, algorithmic culture, and the quantified self; issues related to medicine, risk, and sport; performance enhancement and bioethics; sporting labs and technoscientific practices; elite, professional, and commercial sporting practices in relation to digital objectivity, player performance, injury prevention, player valuation, etc.; public understandings, consumption, and perceptions of sport science and sport technology; professional gaming and eSports; (new) media and other representations and circulations of science, technology and sport; science, technology and sport in relation to (dis)ability, gender, race, class, and sexuality; infrastructure, sustainability, and sport; and (digital) sporting futures.
In addition, given the focus of the conference theme and the ongoing and heightened importance to reflect upon and interrogate current and future uncertainties, papers that center ethics or social justice research, draw upon Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, queer, postcolonial and/or transnational scholarship, address oppressions and inequality, or situate relations between sport, science, and technology within the COVID-19 pandemic are especially welcome.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One effect of the coronavirus pandemic was to shift scientific conferences online. From seminars and workshops to international conferences, previously in-person experiences became online events. This ‘natural experiment’ prompts us to re-examine the benefits and costs of traditional academic meetings and evaluate them against their virtual alternatives. STS research has long seen scientific conferences as a crucial site for the production of knowledge, with the informal interactions between participants particularly important for refreshing existing networks and enabling new and creative networks to form. Of course, all this comes well-recognised costs. On the on hand, there is the obvious environmental cost. On the other, there is the way the conference industry reinforces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race and geography with those most able to attend – and benefit from attending – coming from already advantaged backgrounds. One claim made, therefore, for the online conferences that emerged during covid lockdowns is that they provide a viable alternative to the environmentally damaging and socially discriminatory practices of in-person conferences. In its strongest form, the claim is that in-person meetings are simply not needed anymore. In this panel, we welcome papers that critically examine the claims made for and against both online and in-person conferences and, in so doing, address questions such as what functions can only be performed by in-person meetings and hence justify the environmental cost, what kinds of meetings can be moved online with no significant cost, and how can equitable access to all scientific meetings – virtual or in-person be promoted.
One of the barriers to communicating effective scientific practice and policy to the general public is the difference in the registers spoken by scientists and members of the general public. When this gap between the scientific ‘empiricist’ register and the everyday ‘contingent’ register remains large, it can lead to cynicism, uncertainty, and at worst, distrust and fear amongst nonspecialists (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984). The fields of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and sociology, amongst others have attended to different aspects of ‘semiosis in the lab’ through such varied methodologies as participant-observation (Traweek 1988; Forsythe 2001), semi-structured interviews (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984; Martin 1987), body language (Ochs et al. 1996; Hao & Hood 2017), conversation analysis and ethnomethodology (Goodwin 2018; Lynch 1993), historical discourse analysis (Hesse 1980, 1966; Brown 2003; Collins & Pinch 2012), poetics (Bielo 2019), and critical metaphor analysis (Black 2018; Martin 1987). In order to develop and maintain ‘good relations’ between practising scientists and the public, social scientists have a role to play in ‘translating’ the process of semiosis in the laboratory (or wherever scientists practice their trade), into registers that are accessible to a wider audience (Satsuka 2015). This panel will assemble scholars performing research at the intersection between language, semiotics and science studies, specifically in the analysis of semiosis in real-time research situations instead of in highly mediated forms such as formal papers or science textbooks.
One of the barriers to communicating effective scientific practice and policy to the general public is the difference in the registers spoken by scientists and members of the general public. When this gap between the scientific ‘empiricist’ register and the everyday ‘contingent’ register remains large, it can lead to cynicism, uncertainty, and at worst, distrust and fear amongst nonspecialists (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984). The fields of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and sociology, amongst others have attended to different aspects of ‘semiosis in the lab’ through such varied methodologies as participant-observation (Traweek 1988; Forsythe 2001), semi-structured interviews (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984; Martin 1987), body language (Ochs et al. 1996; Hao & Hood 2017), conversation analysis and ethnomethodology (Goodwin 2018; Lynch 1993), historical discourse analysis (Hesse 1980, 1966; Brown 2003; Collins & Pinch 2012), poetics (Bielo 2019), and critical metaphor analysis (Black 2018; Martin 1987). In order to develop and maintain ‘good relations’ between practising scientists and the public, social scientists have a role to play in ‘translating’ the process of semiosis in the laboratory (or wherever scientists practice their trade), into registers that are accessible to a wider audience (Satsuka 2015). This panel will assemble scholars performing research at the intersection between language, semiotics and science studies, specifically in the analysis of semiosis in real-time research situations instead of in highly mediated forms such as formal papers or science textbooks.
One of the barriers to communicating effective scientific practice and policy to the general public is the difference in the registers spoken by scientists and members of the general public. When this gap between the scientific ‘empiricist’ register and the everyday ‘contingent’ register remains large, it can lead to cynicism, uncertainty, and at worst, distrust and fear amongst nonspecialists (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984). The fields of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and sociology, amongst others have attended to different aspects of ‘semiosis in the lab’ through such varied methodologies as participant-observation (Traweek 1988; Forsythe 2001), semi-structured interviews (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984; Martin 1987), body language (Ochs et al. 1996; Hao & Hood 2017), conversation analysis and ethnomethodology (Goodwin 2018; Lynch 1993), historical discourse analysis (Hesse 1980, 1966; Brown 2003; Collins & Pinch 2012), poetics (Bielo 2019), and critical metaphor analysis (Black 2018; Martin 1987). In order to develop and maintain ‘good relations’ between practising scientists and the public, social scientists have a role to play in ‘translating’ the process of semiosis in the laboratory (or wherever scientists practice their trade), into registers that are accessible to a wider audience (Satsuka 2015). This panel will assemble scholars performing research at the intersection between language, semiotics and science studies, specifically in the analysis of semiosis in real-time research situations instead of in highly mediated forms such as formal papers or science textbooks.
One of the barriers to communicating effective scientific practice and policy to the general public is the difference in the registers spoken by scientists and members of the general public. When this gap between the scientific ‘empiricist’ register and the everyday ‘contingent’ register remains large, it can lead to cynicism, uncertainty, and at worst, distrust and fear amongst nonspecialists (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984). The fields of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and sociology, amongst others have attended to different aspects of ‘semiosis in the lab’ through such varied methodologies as participant-observation (Traweek 1988; Forsythe 2001), semi-structured interviews (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984; Martin 1987), body language (Ochs et al. 1996; Hao & Hood 2017), conversation analysis and ethnomethodology (Goodwin 2018; Lynch 1993), historical discourse analysis (Hesse 1980, 1966; Brown 2003; Collins & Pinch 2012), poetics (Bielo 2019), and critical metaphor analysis (Black 2018; Martin 1987). In order to develop and maintain ‘good relations’ between practising scientists and the public, social scientists have a role to play in ‘translating’ the process of semiosis in the laboratory (or wherever scientists practice their trade), into registers that are accessible to a wider audience (Satsuka 2015). This panel will assemble scholars performing research at the intersection between language, semiotics and science studies, specifically in the analysis of semiosis in real-time research situations instead of in highly mediated forms such as formal papers or science textbooks.
One of the barriers to communicating effective scientific practice and policy to the general public is the difference in the registers spoken by scientists and members of the general public. When this gap between the scientific ‘empiricist’ register and the everyday ‘contingent’ register remains large, it can lead to cynicism, uncertainty, and at worst, distrust and fear amongst nonspecialists (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984). The fields of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and sociology, amongst others have attended to different aspects of ‘semiosis in the lab’ through such varied methodologies as participant-observation (Traweek 1988; Forsythe 2001), semi-structured interviews (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984; Martin 1987), body language (Ochs et al. 1996; Hao & Hood 2017), conversation analysis and ethnomethodology (Goodwin 2018; Lynch 1993), historical discourse analysis (Hesse 1980, 1966; Brown 2003; Collins & Pinch 2012), poetics (Bielo 2019), and critical metaphor analysis (Black 2018; Martin 1987). In order to develop and maintain ‘good relations’ between practising scientists and the public, social scientists have a role to play in ‘translating’ the process of semiosis in the laboratory (or wherever scientists practice their trade), into registers that are accessible to a wider audience (Satsuka 2015). This panel will assemble scholars performing research at the intersection between language, semiotics and science studies, specifically in the analysis of semiosis in real-time research situations instead of in highly mediated forms such as formal papers or science textbooks.
One of the barriers to communicating effective scientific practice and policy to the general public is the difference in the registers spoken by scientists and members of the general public. When this gap between the scientific ‘empiricist’ register and the everyday ‘contingent’ register remains large, it can lead to cynicism, uncertainty, and at worst, distrust and fear amongst nonspecialists (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984). The fields of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and sociology, amongst others have attended to different aspects of ‘semiosis in the lab’ through such varied methodologies as participant-observation (Traweek 1988; Forsythe 2001), semi-structured interviews (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984; Martin 1987), body language (Ochs et al. 1996; Hao & Hood 2017), conversation analysis and ethnomethodology (Goodwin 2018; Lynch 1993), historical discourse analysis (Hesse 1980, 1966; Brown 2003; Collins & Pinch 2012), poetics (Bielo 2019), and critical metaphor analysis (Black 2018; Martin 1987). In order to develop and maintain ‘good relations’ between practising scientists and the public, social scientists have a role to play in ‘translating’ the process of semiosis in the laboratory (or wherever scientists practice their trade), into registers that are accessible to a wider audience (Satsuka 2015). This panel will assemble scholars performing research at the intersection between language, semiotics and science studies, specifically in the analysis of semiosis in real-time research situations instead of in highly mediated forms such as formal papers or science textbooks.
One of the barriers to communicating effective scientific practice and policy to the general public is the difference in the registers spoken by scientists and members of the general public. When this gap between the scientific ‘empiricist’ register and the everyday ‘contingent’ register remains large, it can lead to cynicism, uncertainty, and at worst, distrust and fear amongst nonspecialists (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984). The fields of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and sociology, amongst others have attended to different aspects of ‘semiosis in the lab’ through such varied methodologies as participant-observation (Traweek 1988; Forsythe 2001), semi-structured interviews (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984; Martin 1987), body language (Ochs et al. 1996; Hao & Hood 2017), conversation analysis and ethnomethodology (Goodwin 2018; Lynch 1993), historical discourse analysis (Hesse 1980, 1966; Brown 2003; Collins & Pinch 2012), poetics (Bielo 2019), and critical metaphor analysis (Black 2018; Martin 1987). In order to develop and maintain ‘good relations’ between practising scientists and the public, social scientists have a role to play in ‘translating’ the process of semiosis in the laboratory (or wherever scientists practice their trade), into registers that are accessible to a wider audience (Satsuka 2015). This panel will assemble scholars performing research at the intersection between language, semiotics and science studies, specifically in the analysis of semiosis in real-time research situations instead of in highly mediated forms such as formal papers or science textbooks.
One of the barriers to communicating effective scientific practice and policy to the general public is the difference in the registers spoken by scientists and members of the general public. When this gap between the scientific ‘empiricist’ register and the everyday ‘contingent’ register remains large, it can lead to cynicism, uncertainty, and at worst, distrust and fear amongst nonspecialists (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984). The fields of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and sociology, amongst others have attended to different aspects of ‘semiosis in the lab’ through such varied methodologies as participant-observation (Traweek 1988; Forsythe 2001), semi-structured interviews (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984; Martin 1987), body language (Ochs et al. 1996; Hao & Hood 2017), conversation analysis and ethnomethodology (Goodwin 2018; Lynch 1993), historical discourse analysis (Hesse 1980, 1966; Brown 2003; Collins & Pinch 2012), poetics (Bielo 2019), and critical metaphor analysis (Black 2018; Martin 1987). In order to develop and maintain ‘good relations’ between practising scientists and the public, social scientists have a role to play in ‘translating’ the process of semiosis in the laboratory (or wherever scientists practice their trade), into registers that are accessible to a wider audience (Satsuka 2015). This panel will assemble scholars performing research at the intersection between language, semiotics and science studies, specifically in the analysis of semiosis in real-time research situations instead of in highly mediated forms such as formal papers or science textbooks.
One of the barriers to communicating effective scientific practice and policy to the general public is the difference in the registers spoken by scientists and members of the general public. When this gap between the scientific ‘empiricist’ register and the everyday ‘contingent’ register remains large, it can lead to cynicism, uncertainty, and at worst, distrust and fear amongst nonspecialists (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984). The fields of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and sociology, amongst others have attended to different aspects of ‘semiosis in the lab’ through such varied methodologies as participant-observation (Traweek 1988; Forsythe 2001), semi-structured interviews (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984; Martin 1987), body language (Ochs et al. 1996; Hao & Hood 2017), conversation analysis and ethnomethodology (Goodwin 2018; Lynch 1993), historical discourse analysis (Hesse 1980, 1966; Brown 2003; Collins & Pinch 2012), poetics (Bielo 2019), and critical metaphor analysis (Black 2018; Martin 1987). In order to develop and maintain ‘good relations’ between practising scientists and the public, social scientists have a role to play in ‘translating’ the process of semiosis in the laboratory (or wherever scientists practice their trade), into registers that are accessible to a wider audience (Satsuka 2015). This panel will assemble scholars performing research at the intersection between language, semiotics and science studies, specifically in the analysis of semiosis in real-time research situations instead of in highly mediated forms such as formal papers or science textbooks.
One of the barriers to communicating effective scientific practice and policy to the general public is the difference in the registers spoken by scientists and members of the general public. When this gap between the scientific ‘empiricist’ register and the everyday ‘contingent’ register remains large, it can lead to cynicism, uncertainty, and at worst, distrust and fear amongst nonspecialists (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984). The fields of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and sociology, amongst others have attended to different aspects of ‘semiosis in the lab’ through such varied methodologies as participant-observation (Traweek 1988; Forsythe 2001), semi-structured interviews (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984; Martin 1987), body language (Ochs et al. 1996; Hao & Hood 2017), conversation analysis and ethnomethodology (Goodwin 2018; Lynch 1993), historical discourse analysis (Hesse 1980, 1966; Brown 2003; Collins & Pinch 2012), poetics (Bielo 2019), and critical metaphor analysis (Black 2018; Martin 1987). In order to develop and maintain ‘good relations’ between practising scientists and the public, social scientists have a role to play in ‘translating’ the process of semiosis in the laboratory (or wherever scientists practice their trade), into registers that are accessible to a wider audience (Satsuka 2015). This panel will assemble scholars performing research at the intersection between language, semiotics and science studies, specifically in the analysis of semiosis in real-time research situations instead of in highly mediated forms such as formal papers or science textbooks.
One of the barriers to communicating effective scientific practice and policy to the general public is the difference in the registers spoken by scientists and members of the general public. When this gap between the scientific ‘empiricist’ register and the everyday ‘contingent’ register remains large, it can lead to cynicism, uncertainty, and at worst, distrust and fear amongst nonspecialists (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984). The fields of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and sociology, amongst others have attended to different aspects of ‘semiosis in the lab’ through such varied methodologies as participant-observation (Traweek 1988; Forsythe 2001), semi-structured interviews (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984; Martin 1987), body language (Ochs et al. 1996; Hao & Hood 2017), conversation analysis and ethnomethodology (Goodwin 2018; Lynch 1993), historical discourse analysis (Hesse 1980, 1966; Brown 2003; Collins & Pinch 2012), poetics (Bielo 2019), and critical metaphor analysis (Black 2018; Martin 1987). In order to develop and maintain ‘good relations’ between practising scientists and the public, social scientists have a role to play in ‘translating’ the process of semiosis in the laboratory (or wherever scientists practice their trade), into registers that are accessible to a wider audience (Satsuka 2015). This panel will assemble scholars performing research at the intersection between language, semiotics and science studies, specifically in the analysis of semiosis in real-time research situations instead of in highly mediated forms such as formal papers or science textbooks.
One of the barriers to communicating effective scientific practice and policy to the general public is the difference in the registers spoken by scientists and members of the general public. When this gap between the scientific ‘empiricist’ register and the everyday ‘contingent’ register remains large, it can lead to cynicism, uncertainty, and at worst, distrust and fear amongst nonspecialists (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984). The fields of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and sociology, amongst others have attended to different aspects of ‘semiosis in the lab’ through such varied methodologies as participant-observation (Traweek 1988; Forsythe 2001), semi-structured interviews (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984; Martin 1987), body language (Ochs et al. 1996; Hao & Hood 2017), conversation analysis and ethnomethodology (Goodwin 2018; Lynch 1993), historical discourse analysis (Hesse 1980, 1966; Brown 2003; Collins & Pinch 2012), poetics (Bielo 2019), and critical metaphor analysis (Black 2018; Martin 1987). In order to develop and maintain ‘good relations’ between practising scientists and the public, social scientists have a role to play in ‘translating’ the process of semiosis in the laboratory (or wherever scientists practice their trade), into registers that are accessible to a wider audience (Satsuka 2015). This panel will assemble scholars performing research at the intersection between language, semiotics and science studies, specifically in the analysis of semiosis in real-time research situations instead of in highly mediated forms such as formal papers or science textbooks.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
From Viagra to Truvada to Gardasil, pharmaceuticals have profoundly impacted sex and sexuality. Counting, measuring, and classifying sexual behaviors have been key technoscientific practices to advance pharmacological sex therapies. These drugs, implemented in varied and in contradictory ways, have further biomedicalized sexuality and reinforced hegemonic narratives related to binary normative sex and gender. Viagra, a lifestyle drug marketed for aging Western cisgender men in the Global north reinforces normative and gendered understandings of eroticism, pleasure, and sex through biomedical measurement of erection frequency and time. Other pharmacological sex therapies shift meanings and understandings of sexuality by centering risk and prevention. For example, Truvada, a biomedical HIV prevention technology, leverages sexual behavior data on those classified ‘at-risk’ of HIV to further pathologize homoerotic practices (i.e., bareback sex, Truvada whores). Lessons in the administration of pharmacological sex therapies, such as the mass vaccination of adolescent girls against Human Papilloma Virus though Gardasil is approved for usage across adolescents regardless of biological sex, has reified dominant cultural narratives in relation to female sexuality and risk. This open panel seeks to bring together interdisciplinary scholars to consider, incorporate, and attend to the meanings, uses, and social consequences of pharmaceuticals on sex and sexualities. We are interested in rethinking sexuality amid pharmacological sex therapies, across different substantive sites of research, not only in the implementation of these drugs but also in their development, and in contexts where social and economic uncertainties are present. Contributions from Non-Western countries and the Global South are particularly welcome.
This session would like to engage with knowledge production and the policy framework of the modern technological landscape from the non-western perspective.  Over the last few decades, the techno-scientific ecosystem has increasingly pointed towards the parity between ‘West-East,’ ‘Developed-Developing’, and ‘Centre-Periphery’. The session would like to ask provocative questions about the shift in developing research infrastructure, critical decision-making, and power dynamics in a trans-national ‘East-West’ engagement.
For example, the notion of ‘smartness’, a western policy imagination, dominates the technological interventions in the critical infrastructures in South Asia. The deployment of technical artefacts to make the city and its infrastructure networks ‘smart’ has become an integral part of the policy imagination and governance initiatives. These policy imaginations and techno-scientific metaphors possess invisibility towards the non-western context.  The uncritical, non-collaborative adoptionist/diffusionist notion of such imaginations and metaphors could create space for fatal bio-political interventions, such as ethnic marking, racial and class segregation, etc.
These initiatives have demanded the ‘shift’ and visibility for the non-western sites and their engagement in creating scientific artefacts, metaphors and policy interventions. The panel is interested in engaging with the narratives beyond the western world that can provide reflections about the shifting location within the contemporary process of knowledge production and policy initiatives. The session is open for the papers that can provide an assessment from the historical, sociological and STS perspective about the shifting location of the non-western world in knowledge production and devising governance tools.
This session would like to engage with knowledge production and the policy framework of the modern technological landscape from the non-western perspective.  Over the last few decades, the techno-scientific ecosystem has increasingly pointed towards the parity between ‘West-East,’ ‘Developed-Developing’, and ‘Centre-Periphery’. The session would like to ask provocative questions about the shift in developing research infrastructure, critical decision-making, and power dynamics in a trans-national ‘East-West’ engagement.
For example, the notion of ‘smartness’, a western policy imagination, dominates the technological interventions in the critical infrastructures in South Asia. The deployment of technical artefacts to make the city and its infrastructure networks ‘smart’ has become an integral part of the policy imagination and governance initiatives. These policy imaginations and techno-scientific metaphors possess invisibility towards the non-western context.  The uncritical, non-collaborative adoptionist/diffusionist notion of such imaginations and metaphors could create space for fatal bio-political interventions, such as ethnic marking, racial and class segregation, etc.
These initiatives have demanded the ‘shift’ and visibility for the non-western sites and their engagement in creating scientific artefacts, metaphors and policy interventions. The panel is interested in engaging with the narratives beyond the western world that can provide reflections about the shifting location within the contemporary process of knowledge production and policy initiatives. The session is open for the papers that can provide an assessment from the historical, sociological and STS perspective about the shifting location of the non-western world in knowledge production and devising governance tools.
This session would like to engage with knowledge production and the policy framework of the modern technological landscape from the non-western perspective.  Over the last few decades, the techno-scientific ecosystem has increasingly pointed towards the parity between ‘West-East,’ ‘Developed-Developing’, and ‘Centre-Periphery’. The session would like to ask provocative questions about the shift in developing research infrastructure, critical decision-making, and power dynamics in a trans-national ‘East-West’ engagement.
For example, the notion of ‘smartness’, a western policy imagination, dominates the technological interventions in the critical infrastructures in South Asia. The deployment of technical artefacts to make the city and its infrastructure networks ‘smart’ has become an integral part of the policy imagination and governance initiatives. These policy imaginations and techno-scientific metaphors possess invisibility towards the non-western context.  The uncritical, non-collaborative adoptionist/diffusionist notion of such imaginations and metaphors could create space for fatal bio-political interventions, such as ethnic marking, racial and class segregation, etc.
These initiatives have demanded the ‘shift’ and visibility for the non-western sites and their engagement in creating scientific artefacts, metaphors and policy interventions. The panel is interested in engaging with the narratives beyond the western world that can provide reflections about the shifting location within the contemporary process of knowledge production and policy initiatives. The session is open for the papers that can provide an assessment from the historical, sociological and STS perspective about the shifting location of the non-western world in knowledge production and devising governance tools.
This session would like to engage with knowledge production and the policy framework of the modern technological landscape from the non-western perspective.  Over the last few decades, the techno-scientific ecosystem has increasingly pointed towards the parity between ‘West-East,’ ‘Developed-Developing’, and ‘Centre-Periphery’. The session would like to ask provocative questions about the shift in developing research infrastructure, critical decision-making, and power dynamics in a trans-national ‘East-West’ engagement.
For example, the notion of ‘smartness’, a western policy imagination, dominates the technological interventions in the critical infrastructures in South Asia. The deployment of technical artefacts to make the city and its infrastructure networks ‘smart’ has become an integral part of the policy imagination and governance initiatives. These policy imaginations and techno-scientific metaphors possess invisibility towards the non-western context.  The uncritical, non-collaborative adoptionist/diffusionist notion of such imaginations and metaphors could create space for fatal bio-political interventions, such as ethnic marking, racial and class segregation, etc.
These initiatives have demanded the ‘shift’ and visibility for the non-western sites and their engagement in creating scientific artefacts, metaphors and policy interventions. The panel is interested in engaging with the narratives beyond the western world that can provide reflections about the shifting location within the contemporary process of knowledge production and policy initiatives. The session is open for the papers that can provide an assessment from the historical, sociological and STS perspective about the shifting location of the non-western world in knowledge production and devising governance tools.
This session would like to engage with knowledge production and the policy framework of the modern technological landscape from the non-western perspective.  Over the last few decades, the techno-scientific ecosystem has increasingly pointed towards the parity between ‘West-East,’ ‘Developed-Developing’, and ‘Centre-Periphery’. The session would like to ask provocative questions about the shift in developing research infrastructure, critical decision-making, and power dynamics in a trans-national ‘East-West’ engagement.
For example, the notion of ‘smartness’, a western policy imagination, dominates the technological interventions in the critical infrastructures in South Asia. The deployment of technical artefacts to make the city and its infrastructure networks ‘smart’ has become an integral part of the policy imagination and governance initiatives. These policy imaginations and techno-scientific metaphors possess invisibility towards the non-western context.  The uncritical, non-collaborative adoptionist/diffusionist notion of such imaginations and metaphors could create space for fatal bio-political interventions, such as ethnic marking, racial and class segregation, etc.
These initiatives have demanded the ‘shift’ and visibility for the non-western sites and their engagement in creating scientific artefacts, metaphors and policy interventions. The panel is interested in engaging with the narratives beyond the western world that can provide reflections about the shifting location within the contemporary process of knowledge production and policy initiatives. The session is open for the papers that can provide an assessment from the historical, sociological and STS perspective about the shifting location of the non-western world in knowledge production and devising governance tools.
This session would like to engage with knowledge production and the policy framework of the modern technological landscape from the non-western perspective.  Over the last few decades, the techno-scientific ecosystem has increasingly pointed towards the parity between ‘West-East,’ ‘Developed-Developing’, and ‘Centre-Periphery’. The session would like to ask provocative questions about the shift in developing research infrastructure, critical decision-making, and power dynamics in a trans-national ‘East-West’ engagement.
For example, the notion of ‘smartness’, a western policy imagination, dominates the technological interventions in the critical infrastructures in South Asia. The deployment of technical artefacts to make the city and its infrastructure networks ‘smart’ has become an integral part of the policy imagination and governance initiatives. These policy imaginations and techno-scientific metaphors possess invisibility towards the non-western context.  The uncritical, non-collaborative adoptionist/diffusionist notion of such imaginations and metaphors could create space for fatal bio-political interventions, such as ethnic marking, racial and class segregation, etc.
These initiatives have demanded the ‘shift’ and visibility for the non-western sites and their engagement in creating scientific artefacts, metaphors and policy interventions. The panel is interested in engaging with the narratives beyond the western world that can provide reflections about the shifting location within the contemporary process of knowledge production and policy initiatives. The session is open for the papers that can provide an assessment from the historical, sociological and STS perspective about the shifting location of the non-western world in knowledge production and devising governance tools.
This session would like to engage with knowledge production and the policy framework of the modern technological landscape from the non-western perspective.  Over the last few decades, the techno-scientific ecosystem has increasingly pointed towards the parity between ‘West-East,’ ‘Developed-Developing’, and ‘Centre-Periphery’. The session would like to ask provocative questions about the shift in developing research infrastructure, critical decision-making, and power dynamics in a trans-national ‘East-West’ engagement.
For example, the notion of ‘smartness’, a western policy imagination, dominates the technological interventions in the critical infrastructures in South Asia. The deployment of technical artefacts to make the city and its infrastructure networks ‘smart’ has become an integral part of the policy imagination and governance initiatives. These policy imaginations and techno-scientific metaphors possess invisibility towards the non-western context.  The uncritical, non-collaborative adoptionist/diffusionist notion of such imaginations and metaphors could create space for fatal bio-political interventions, such as ethnic marking, racial and class segregation, etc.
These initiatives have demanded the ‘shift’ and visibility for the non-western sites and their engagement in creating scientific artefacts, metaphors and policy interventions. The panel is interested in engaging with the narratives beyond the western world that can provide reflections about the shifting location within the contemporary process of knowledge production and policy initiatives. The session is open for the papers that can provide an assessment from the historical, sociological and STS perspective about the shifting location of the non-western world in knowledge production and devising governance tools.
This session would like to engage with knowledge production and the policy framework of the modern technological landscape from the non-western perspective.  Over the last few decades, the techno-scientific ecosystem has increasingly pointed towards the parity between ‘West-East,’ ‘Developed-Developing’, and ‘Centre-Periphery’. The session would like to ask provocative questions about the shift in developing research infrastructure, critical decision-making, and power dynamics in a trans-national ‘East-West’ engagement.
For example, the notion of ‘smartness’, a western policy imagination, dominates the technological interventions in the critical infrastructures in South Asia. The deployment of technical artefacts to make the city and its infrastructure networks ‘smart’ has become an integral part of the policy imagination and governance initiatives. These policy imaginations and techno-scientific metaphors possess invisibility towards the non-western context.  The uncritical, non-collaborative adoptionist/diffusionist notion of such imaginations and metaphors could create space for fatal bio-political interventions, such as ethnic marking, racial and class segregation, etc.
These initiatives have demanded the ‘shift’ and visibility for the non-western sites and their engagement in creating scientific artefacts, metaphors and policy interventions. The panel is interested in engaging with the narratives beyond the western world that can provide reflections about the shifting location within the contemporary process of knowledge production and policy initiatives. The session is open for the papers that can provide an assessment from the historical, sociological and STS perspective about the shifting location of the non-western world in knowledge production and devising governance tools.
This session would like to engage with knowledge production and the policy framework of the modern technological landscape from the non-western perspective.  Over the last few decades, the techno-scientific ecosystem has increasingly pointed towards the parity between ‘West-East,’ ‘Developed-Developing’, and ‘Centre-Periphery’. The session would like to ask provocative questions about the shift in developing research infrastructure, critical decision-making, and power dynamics in a trans-national ‘East-West’ engagement.
For example, the notion of ‘smartness’, a western policy imagination, dominates the technological interventions in the critical infrastructures in South Asia. The deployment of technical artefacts to make the city and its infrastructure networks ‘smart’ has become an integral part of the policy imagination and governance initiatives. These policy imaginations and techno-scientific metaphors possess invisibility towards the non-western context.  The uncritical, non-collaborative adoptionist/diffusionist notion of such imaginations and metaphors could create space for fatal bio-political interventions, such as ethnic marking, racial and class segregation, etc.
These initiatives have demanded the ‘shift’ and visibility for the non-western sites and their engagement in creating scientific artefacts, metaphors and policy interventions. The panel is interested in engaging with the narratives beyond the western world that can provide reflections about the shifting location within the contemporary process of knowledge production and policy initiatives. The session is open for the papers that can provide an assessment from the historical, sociological and STS perspective about the shifting location of the non-western world in knowledge production and devising governance tools.
This session would like to engage with knowledge production and the policy framework of the modern technological landscape from the non-western perspective.  Over the last few decades, the techno-scientific ecosystem has increasingly pointed towards the parity between ‘West-East,’ ‘Developed-Developing’, and ‘Centre-Periphery’. The session would like to ask provocative questions about the shift in developing research infrastructure, critical decision-making, and power dynamics in a trans-national ‘East-West’ engagement.
For example, the notion of ‘smartness’, a western policy imagination, dominates the technological interventions in the critical infrastructures in South Asia. The deployment of technical artefacts to make the city and its infrastructure networks ‘smart’ has become an integral part of the policy imagination and governance initiatives. These policy imaginations and techno-scientific metaphors possess invisibility towards the non-western context.  The uncritical, non-collaborative adoptionist/diffusionist notion of such imaginations and metaphors could create space for fatal bio-political interventions, such as ethnic marking, racial and class segregation, etc.
These initiatives have demanded the ‘shift’ and visibility for the non-western sites and their engagement in creating scientific artefacts, metaphors and policy interventions. The panel is interested in engaging with the narratives beyond the western world that can provide reflections about the shifting location within the contemporary process of knowledge production and policy initiatives. The session is open for the papers that can provide an assessment from the historical, sociological and STS perspective about the shifting location of the non-western world in knowledge production and devising governance tools.
This session would like to engage with knowledge production and the policy framework of the modern technological landscape from the non-western perspective.  Over the last few decades, the techno-scientific ecosystem has increasingly pointed towards the parity between ‘West-East,’ ‘Developed-Developing’, and ‘Centre-Periphery’. The session would like to ask provocative questions about the shift in developing research infrastructure, critical decision-making, and power dynamics in a trans-national ‘East-West’ engagement.
For example, the notion of ‘smartness’, a western policy imagination, dominates the technological interventions in the critical infrastructures in South Asia. The deployment of technical artefacts to make the city and its infrastructure networks ‘smart’ has become an integral part of the policy imagination and governance initiatives. These policy imaginations and techno-scientific metaphors possess invisibility towards the non-western context.  The uncritical, non-collaborative adoptionist/diffusionist notion of such imaginations and metaphors could create space for fatal bio-political interventions, such as ethnic marking, racial and class segregation, etc.
These initiatives have demanded the ‘shift’ and visibility for the non-western sites and their engagement in creating scientific artefacts, metaphors and policy interventions. The panel is interested in engaging with the narratives beyond the western world that can provide reflections about the shifting location within the contemporary process of knowledge production and policy initiatives. The session is open for the papers that can provide an assessment from the historical, sociological and STS perspective about the shifting location of the non-western world in knowledge production and devising governance tools.
This session would like to engage with knowledge production and the policy framework of the modern technological landscape from the non-western perspective.  Over the last few decades, the techno-scientific ecosystem has increasingly pointed towards the parity between ‘West-East,’ ‘Developed-Developing’, and ‘Centre-Periphery’. The session would like to ask provocative questions about the shift in developing research infrastructure, critical decision-making, and power dynamics in a trans-national ‘East-West’ engagement.
For example, the notion of ‘smartness’, a western policy imagination, dominates the technological interventions in the critical infrastructures in South Asia. The deployment of technical artefacts to make the city and its infrastructure networks ‘smart’ has become an integral part of the policy imagination and governance initiatives. These policy imaginations and techno-scientific metaphors possess invisibility towards the non-western context.  The uncritical, non-collaborative adoptionist/diffusionist notion of such imaginations and metaphors could create space for fatal bio-political interventions, such as ethnic marking, racial and class segregation, etc.
These initiatives have demanded the ‘shift’ and visibility for the non-western sites and their engagement in creating scientific artefacts, metaphors and policy interventions. The panel is interested in engaging with the narratives beyond the western world that can provide reflections about the shifting location within the contemporary process of knowledge production and policy initiatives. The session is open for the papers that can provide an assessment from the historical, sociological and STS perspective about the shifting location of the non-western world in knowledge production and devising governance tools.
Our current realities are a mess to embrace: the current global pandemic and its disruptions in labor, education, and other socio-technical systems; the increasing political and ontological polarizations and the urgent action against a human-catalyzed climate emergence are challenged our notion of safety, certainty, and even the survival of life on earth (as the ongoing massive extinction, and other fateful events). Our cartesian imaginations in fiction, planning, modeling, anticipation, and foresight are being defied for the unknown, opening a public demand for new ecological, material, and inter-mutual relations around the globe.
A source of these imaginations are images of the future. In 1961, Frederick Polak defined it as “images of the totally other, and they are revolutionary and radical in nature, or they are nothing at all”. Future studies have contributed to popularize these images,  (Inayatullah, 2008; Zheltikova & Khokhlova, 2019), which are connected to the movements of decolonial anthropologies and designs (Tlostanova, 2017; Escobar, 2018; Schultz, 2018), as well offer powerful insight for the study of emergent socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015; Konrad & Böhle, 2019).
This panel wants to set a conversation around the role of images of the future in STS, in particular projects and practices looking at local, topical, or systemic images. We hope to have contributions to understanding how to situate, expand, nuance, and (de)centered “images of the futures”, to produce alternative realities (like Afro-futurism or Solar-Punk), and to restore more-than-human balances from the unequal, unbalanced, and unfair relations across scales.
Our current realities are a mess to embrace: the current global pandemic and its disruptions in labor, education, and other socio-technical systems; the increasing political and ontological polarizations and the urgent action against a human-catalyzed climate emergence are challenged our notion of safety, certainty, and even the survival of life on earth (as the ongoing massive extinction, and other fateful events). Our cartesian imaginations in fiction, planning, modeling, anticipation, and foresight are being defied for the unknown, opening a public demand for new ecological, material, and inter-mutual relations around the globe.
A source of these imaginations are images of the future. In 1961, Frederick Polak defined it as “images of the totally other, and they are revolutionary and radical in nature, or they are nothing at all”. Future studies have contributed to popularize these images,  (Inayatullah, 2008; Zheltikova & Khokhlova, 2019), which are connected to the movements of decolonial anthropologies and designs (Tlostanova, 2017; Escobar, 2018; Schultz, 2018), as well offer powerful insight for the study of emergent socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015; Konrad & Böhle, 2019).
This panel wants to set a conversation around the role of images of the future in STS, in particular projects and practices looking at local, topical, or systemic images. We hope to have contributions to understanding how to situate, expand, nuance, and (de)centered “images of the futures”, to produce alternative realities (like Afro-futurism or Solar-Punk), and to restore more-than-human balances from the unequal, unbalanced, and unfair relations across scales.
Our current realities are a mess to embrace: the current global pandemic and its disruptions in labor, education, and other socio-technical systems; the increasing political and ontological polarizations and the urgent action against a human-catalyzed climate emergence are challenged our notion of safety, certainty, and even the survival of life on earth (as the ongoing massive extinction, and other fateful events). Our cartesian imaginations in fiction, planning, modeling, anticipation, and foresight are being defied for the unknown, opening a public demand for new ecological, material, and inter-mutual relations around the globe.
A source of these imaginations are images of the future. In 1961, Frederick Polak defined it as “images of the totally other, and they are revolutionary and radical in nature, or they are nothing at all”. Future studies have contributed to popularize these images,  (Inayatullah, 2008; Zheltikova & Khokhlova, 2019), which are connected to the movements of decolonial anthropologies and designs (Tlostanova, 2017; Escobar, 2018; Schultz, 2018), as well offer powerful insight for the study of emergent socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015; Konrad & Böhle, 2019).
This panel wants to set a conversation around the role of images of the future in STS, in particular projects and practices looking at local, topical, or systemic images. We hope to have contributions to understanding how to situate, expand, nuance, and (de)centered “images of the futures”, to produce alternative realities (like Afro-futurism or Solar-Punk), and to restore more-than-human balances from the unequal, unbalanced, and unfair relations across scales.
Our current realities are a mess to embrace: the current global pandemic and its disruptions in labor, education, and other socio-technical systems; the increasing political and ontological polarizations and the urgent action against a human-catalyzed climate emergence are challenged our notion of safety, certainty, and even the survival of life on earth (as the ongoing massive extinction, and other fateful events). Our cartesian imaginations in fiction, planning, modeling, anticipation, and foresight are being defied for the unknown, opening a public demand for new ecological, material, and inter-mutual relations around the globe.
A source of these imaginations are images of the future. In 1961, Frederick Polak defined it as “images of the totally other, and they are revolutionary and radical in nature, or they are nothing at all”. Future studies have contributed to popularize these images,  (Inayatullah, 2008; Zheltikova & Khokhlova, 2019), which are connected to the movements of decolonial anthropologies and designs (Tlostanova, 2017; Escobar, 2018; Schultz, 2018), as well offer powerful insight for the study of emergent socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015; Konrad & Böhle, 2019).
This panel wants to set a conversation around the role of images of the future in STS, in particular projects and practices looking at local, topical, or systemic images. We hope to have contributions to understanding how to situate, expand, nuance, and (de)centered “images of the futures”, to produce alternative realities (like Afro-futurism or Solar-Punk), and to restore more-than-human balances from the unequal, unbalanced, and unfair relations across scales.
Our current realities are a mess to embrace: the current global pandemic and its disruptions in labor, education, and other socio-technical systems; the increasing political and ontological polarizations and the urgent action against a human-catalyzed climate emergence are challenged our notion of safety, certainty, and even the survival of life on earth (as the ongoing massive extinction, and other fateful events). Our cartesian imaginations in fiction, planning, modeling, anticipation, and foresight are being defied for the unknown, opening a public demand for new ecological, material, and inter-mutual relations around the globe.
A source of these imaginations are images of the future. In 1961, Frederick Polak defined it as “images of the totally other, and they are revolutionary and radical in nature, or they are nothing at all”. Future studies have contributed to popularize these images,  (Inayatullah, 2008; Zheltikova & Khokhlova, 2019), which are connected to the movements of decolonial anthropologies and designs (Tlostanova, 2017; Escobar, 2018; Schultz, 2018), as well offer powerful insight for the study of emergent socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015; Konrad & Böhle, 2019).
This panel wants to set a conversation around the role of images of the future in STS, in particular projects and practices looking at local, topical, or systemic images. We hope to have contributions to understanding how to situate, expand, nuance, and (de)centered “images of the futures”, to produce alternative realities (like Afro-futurism or Solar-Punk), and to restore more-than-human balances from the unequal, unbalanced, and unfair relations across scales.
Our current realities are a mess to embrace: the current global pandemic and its disruptions in labor, education, and other socio-technical systems; the increasing political and ontological polarizations and the urgent action against a human-catalyzed climate emergence are challenged our notion of safety, certainty, and even the survival of life on earth (as the ongoing massive extinction, and other fateful events). Our cartesian imaginations in fiction, planning, modeling, anticipation, and foresight are being defied for the unknown, opening a public demand for new ecological, material, and inter-mutual relations around the globe.
A source of these imaginations are images of the future. In 1961, Frederick Polak defined it as “images of the totally other, and they are revolutionary and radical in nature, or they are nothing at all”. Future studies have contributed to popularize these images,  (Inayatullah, 2008; Zheltikova & Khokhlova, 2019), which are connected to the movements of decolonial anthropologies and designs (Tlostanova, 2017; Escobar, 2018; Schultz, 2018), as well offer powerful insight for the study of emergent socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015; Konrad & Böhle, 2019).
This panel wants to set a conversation around the role of images of the future in STS, in particular projects and practices looking at local, topical, or systemic images. We hope to have contributions to understanding how to situate, expand, nuance, and (de)centered “images of the futures”, to produce alternative realities (like Afro-futurism or Solar-Punk), and to restore more-than-human balances from the unequal, unbalanced, and unfair relations across scales.
Our current realities are a mess to embrace: the current global pandemic and its disruptions in labor, education, and other socio-technical systems; the increasing political and ontological polarizations and the urgent action against a human-catalyzed climate emergence are challenged our notion of safety, certainty, and even the survival of life on earth (as the ongoing massive extinction, and other fateful events). Our cartesian imaginations in fiction, planning, modeling, anticipation, and foresight are being defied for the unknown, opening a public demand for new ecological, material, and inter-mutual relations around the globe.
A source of these imaginations are images of the future. In 1961, Frederick Polak defined it as “images of the totally other, and they are revolutionary and radical in nature, or they are nothing at all”. Future studies have contributed to popularize these images,  (Inayatullah, 2008; Zheltikova & Khokhlova, 2019), which are connected to the movements of decolonial anthropologies and designs (Tlostanova, 2017; Escobar, 2018; Schultz, 2018), as well offer powerful insight for the study of emergent socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015; Konrad & Böhle, 2019).
This panel wants to set a conversation around the role of images of the future in STS, in particular projects and practices looking at local, topical, or systemic images. We hope to have contributions to understanding how to situate, expand, nuance, and (de)centered “images of the futures”, to produce alternative realities (like Afro-futurism or Solar-Punk), and to restore more-than-human balances from the unequal, unbalanced, and unfair relations across scales.
Our current realities are a mess to embrace: the current global pandemic and its disruptions in labor, education, and other socio-technical systems; the increasing political and ontological polarizations and the urgent action against a human-catalyzed climate emergence are challenged our notion of safety, certainty, and even the survival of life on earth (as the ongoing massive extinction, and other fateful events). Our cartesian imaginations in fiction, planning, modeling, anticipation, and foresight are being defied for the unknown, opening a public demand for new ecological, material, and inter-mutual relations around the globe.
A source of these imaginations are images of the future. In 1961, Frederick Polak defined it as “images of the totally other, and they are revolutionary and radical in nature, or they are nothing at all”. Future studies have contributed to popularize these images,  (Inayatullah, 2008; Zheltikova & Khokhlova, 2019), which are connected to the movements of decolonial anthropologies and designs (Tlostanova, 2017; Escobar, 2018; Schultz, 2018), as well offer powerful insight for the study of emergent socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015; Konrad & Böhle, 2019).
This panel wants to set a conversation around the role of images of the future in STS, in particular projects and practices looking at local, topical, or systemic images. We hope to have contributions to understanding how to situate, expand, nuance, and (de)centered “images of the futures”, to produce alternative realities (like Afro-futurism or Solar-Punk), and to restore more-than-human balances from the unequal, unbalanced, and unfair relations across scales.
Our current realities are a mess to embrace: the current global pandemic and its disruptions in labor, education, and other socio-technical systems; the increasing political and ontological polarizations and the urgent action against a human-catalyzed climate emergence are challenged our notion of safety, certainty, and even the survival of life on earth (as the ongoing massive extinction, and other fateful events). Our cartesian imaginations in fiction, planning, modeling, anticipation, and foresight are being defied for the unknown, opening a public demand for new ecological, material, and inter-mutual relations around the globe.
A source of these imaginations are images of the future. In 1961, Frederick Polak defined it as “images of the totally other, and they are revolutionary and radical in nature, or they are nothing at all”. Future studies have contributed to popularize these images,  (Inayatullah, 2008; Zheltikova & Khokhlova, 2019), which are connected to the movements of decolonial anthropologies and designs (Tlostanova, 2017; Escobar, 2018; Schultz, 2018), as well offer powerful insight for the study of emergent socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015; Konrad & Böhle, 2019).
This panel wants to set a conversation around the role of images of the future in STS, in particular projects and practices looking at local, topical, or systemic images. We hope to have contributions to understanding how to situate, expand, nuance, and (de)centered “images of the futures”, to produce alternative realities (like Afro-futurism or Solar-Punk), and to restore more-than-human balances from the unequal, unbalanced, and unfair relations across scales.
Our current realities are a mess to embrace: the current global pandemic and its disruptions in labor, education, and other socio-technical systems; the increasing political and ontological polarizations and the urgent action against a human-catalyzed climate emergence are challenged our notion of safety, certainty, and even the survival of life on earth (as the ongoing massive extinction, and other fateful events). Our cartesian imaginations in fiction, planning, modeling, anticipation, and foresight are being defied for the unknown, opening a public demand for new ecological, material, and inter-mutual relations around the globe.
A source of these imaginations are images of the future. In 1961, Frederick Polak defined it as “images of the totally other, and they are revolutionary and radical in nature, or they are nothing at all”. Future studies have contributed to popularize these images,  (Inayatullah, 2008; Zheltikova & Khokhlova, 2019), which are connected to the movements of decolonial anthropologies and designs (Tlostanova, 2017; Escobar, 2018; Schultz, 2018), as well offer powerful insight for the study of emergent socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015; Konrad & Böhle, 2019).
This panel wants to set a conversation around the role of images of the future in STS, in particular projects and practices looking at local, topical, or systemic images. We hope to have contributions to understanding how to situate, expand, nuance, and (de)centered “images of the futures”, to produce alternative realities (like Afro-futurism or Solar-Punk), and to restore more-than-human balances from the unequal, unbalanced, and unfair relations across scales.
Our current realities are a mess to embrace: the current global pandemic and its disruptions in labor, education, and other socio-technical systems; the increasing political and ontological polarizations and the urgent action against a human-catalyzed climate emergence are challenged our notion of safety, certainty, and even the survival of life on earth (as the ongoing massive extinction, and other fateful events). Our cartesian imaginations in fiction, planning, modeling, anticipation, and foresight are being defied for the unknown, opening a public demand for new ecological, material, and inter-mutual relations around the globe.
A source of these imaginations are images of the future. In 1961, Frederick Polak defined it as “images of the totally other, and they are revolutionary and radical in nature, or they are nothing at all”. Future studies have contributed to popularize these images,  (Inayatullah, 2008; Zheltikova & Khokhlova, 2019), which are connected to the movements of decolonial anthropologies and designs (Tlostanova, 2017; Escobar, 2018; Schultz, 2018), as well offer powerful insight for the study of emergent socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015; Konrad & Böhle, 2019).
This panel wants to set a conversation around the role of images of the future in STS, in particular projects and practices looking at local, topical, or systemic images. We hope to have contributions to understanding how to situate, expand, nuance, and (de)centered “images of the futures”, to produce alternative realities (like Afro-futurism or Solar-Punk), and to restore more-than-human balances from the unequal, unbalanced, and unfair relations across scales.
Our current realities are a mess to embrace: the current global pandemic and its disruptions in labor, education, and other socio-technical systems; the increasing political and ontological polarizations and the urgent action against a human-catalyzed climate emergence are challenged our notion of safety, certainty, and even the survival of life on earth (as the ongoing massive extinction, and other fateful events). Our cartesian imaginations in fiction, planning, modeling, anticipation, and foresight are being defied for the unknown, opening a public demand for new ecological, material, and inter-mutual relations around the globe.
A source of these imaginations are images of the future. In 1961, Frederick Polak defined it as “images of the totally other, and they are revolutionary and radical in nature, or they are nothing at all”. Future studies have contributed to popularize these images,  (Inayatullah, 2008; Zheltikova & Khokhlova, 2019), which are connected to the movements of decolonial anthropologies and designs (Tlostanova, 2017; Escobar, 2018; Schultz, 2018), as well offer powerful insight for the study of emergent socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015; Konrad & Böhle, 2019).
This panel wants to set a conversation around the role of images of the future in STS, in particular projects and practices looking at local, topical, or systemic images. We hope to have contributions to understanding how to situate, expand, nuance, and (de)centered “images of the futures”, to produce alternative realities (like Afro-futurism or Solar-Punk), and to restore more-than-human balances from the unequal, unbalanced, and unfair relations across scales.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
The rise of sustainability sciences followed the signing of the three Rio conventions (CBD, UNCCD and GCC). Consequently, the last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise from multidisciplinary to inter and transdisciplinary  research dealing with complex systems. Most conservationists ended up accepting that notions of pristine environments have not helped but hindered conservation efforts. Sustainability studies corroborated that the conventional distinction of ecosystems and social systems had made it more difficult to understand socio-ecological interactions. At the same time STS revealed the failure of attempting to increase agro-food resilience capacities through technological means alone.
However, reforms have been uneven not only across the developed and developing world but also across sectors. Worryingly in no other sector have the problems been more acute and the resistance to change more decisive that in agriculture. Agriculture continues to be the main driver of deforestation and habitat loss (WWF 2020). It contributes a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -17% through agricultural activities and 7-14% through changes in land use (Howden et.al. 2007; OECD 2020). And although the STS critique of the political use of “desertification” discourse, there is agreement that agriculture continues to be a main driver of soil depletion and erosion.  Therefore, it is urgent to identify the barriers and incentives, facilitating or hindering to transitioning towards sustainable agri-food systems. Presentations of this session would critically examine case studies with view to strengthen collaborative research in this area.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Demographic ageing and the rapid advancement of technology – especially digital technologies – are important societal trends. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trends are also interrelated. Digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication increasingly shape the social worlds of people in later life. Digital technologies are also increasingly designed specifically with older people in mind. This raises important critical questions about the interaction of techno-scientific practice with meanings of growing and being old. Such questions, for instance, pertain to ageism in design, tensions between visions of late-life independence versus the surveillance of older people, bricolage in the configuration of care technologies, creative uses of social media and other digital apps by older people, or, more generally, interdisciplinary theorizing about the many intertwinements of ageing and technology. 
In recent years, such questions have received growing attention by scholars that work at the intersection of STS and Age Studies to understand the co-constitution of ageing and technology. This dialogue is driven by a strong sense for combining theoretical sensitivities with an activist agenda to improve the quality of life and everyday lives of people as they grow older as these become increasingly intertwineded with technoscientific objects. 
For this session, we invite scholarship at the intersection of STS, Age Studies and Gerontechnology that critically explores such intertwinements of ageing and technology in various empirical domains. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how STS sensitivities can help do old age policies or gerontechnology design differently.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Leaving behind its traditional invisibility, in recent years soils have become a topic of growing interest among social scientists, especially STS scholars. One of the most central contributions of this growing field has been the recognition that how we engage with soils matters. The myriad ways in which we interact with soils–from scientific surveys to daily sensorial engagement–are never purely technical or practical, but have important consequences for the way soils are seen and acted upon. Especially through the use of technoscientific devices, soil sensing materializes a particular kind of politics, giving birth to different kinds of power and environmental (in)justices. 
This session aims to convene STS scholars whose work addresses questions about sensing and producing knowledge about soil contents (minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, etc.) and disturbances (pollutants, fertilizers, etc.). In line with the conference theme, we will be especially open to presentations that challenge usual ways to sense soils and/or speculate on novel ways to engage with them.
Potential themes include:
• Conceptual and historical explorations of notions and practices of sensing soil, as well as capabilities and shortcomings of sensory methods.
• Critical engagements with current technical methods and practices for soil sensing, especially focusing on ways to transform them.
• Case studies focused on practices of soil sensing “on the ground” by experts and non-experts, particularly considering issues of environmental (in)justice.
• Speculative designs of alternative concepts and methods that could help us to transform the usual ways in which we engage with soils.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
Since its birth, the Internet has been viewed as a unifying force, building on a tradition of thinking about communication infrastructures that stretches at least as far back as McLuhan’s “global village” (1964). Yet the history of the Internet illustrates a series of struggles to control a multi-layered network, rather than a technologically-mediated unity. Analyses of these struggles have ranged from those focused on the role of states in controlling the open Internet (Kalathil and Boas 2003; Goldsmith and Wu 2006), to those drawing attention to the dangers of corporate “walled gardens” (Zittrain 2008; van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal 2018), to efforts at identifying geo-political spheres of influence on the Internet (O’Hara and Hall 2018). All of these analyses share a concern that rather than a unified global Internet, we might instead be dealing with a series of fragmented networks (Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwächter 2016; Mueller 2017), or “splinternets” (Malcomson 2016; Hoffmann, Lazanski, and Taylor 2020; Epifanova 2020).
In this panel, we seek papers that build on existing scholarship on fragmented internets to understand from a historical, social and technical perspective the centrifugal and centripetal forces that may change how the Internet works. We are particularly interested in work that unpicks images of split internets which conflate technical, political and commercial considerations, and in work that offers new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights into current and historical relational processes of fragmentation and unification.
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
In 2018, Michael Mascarenhas described STS as a white space through how its programs, institutions, leadership, and inquiries perpetuate white supremacy. This often emerges as colorblindness, an ideology of unmarked whiteness where anti-racialism is assumed to accomplish anti-racism. Although existing STSers work to decenter United States and European geographies and genealogies as the sole sites for STS, many sites of whiteness in STS remain black boxed. Given the position of STS to shape and intervene in technoscientific knowledge production and policy, it is urgent for STSers to deconstruct the whiteness that is reproduced in our work. 
In thinking with the conference theme of Good Relations and the urgency of making and doing STS in ways that decenter white supremacy, this panel will explore what it means for STS and STSers to decenter white supremacy. This includes discussions of the reproduction of whiteness in STS and the alternative relationalities required to decenter whiteness in our scholarship and practice.
Contributions should address questions, including, but not limited to: 
How does STS (including tacit notions of who/what is STS) reproduce whiteness? How might pressures to institutionalize STS or form disciplinary identities foreground whiteness?
How could discussions about the whiteness of STS mask existing critical race and ethnic studies scholarship in STS? 
What possibilities are there for decentering whiteness in conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, scholarship, programs, and practices of STS?  
How might we strategize such that non-white scholars are not disproportionately burdened to decenter whiteness?
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
How can STS scholars spread their work and ideas outside of academia? In the last decade, STS has demonstrated a broad commitment to extending the rails of its scholarship. Yet even well-meaning tech activists like Tristan Harris and Cathy O’Neil have seemed unaware of even the existence of the field, much less the contributions it could make to public debates. And when STS scholarship does appear in popular works, such as in Planet of the Humans, things sometimes go off the rails. But the interdiscipline has immense potential to help with impending crises, such as climate change or “post-truth” politics. At the very least, it is imprudent to allow scientistic narratives proffered by people like Michael Shellenberger or techno-fixes proposed by Mark Zuckerberg to dominate the media.
The purpose of this panel is to share knowledge and collaborate in imagining how STS trained people could be more effective “thoughtful partisans,” how their research and analysis could more reliably influence policy debates. We are interested in panelists who can speak to: How to pitch STS-inspired op-eds to popular outlets? How to reach out to and work with journalists and documentary filmmakers? How to run a successful podcast or YouTube channel? Participants should be open to non-traditional panel formats, ones that allow more interaction and sharing with attendees. And we are particularly interested in contributions that emphasize learning from non-academics (not simply “informing” them) as well as engaging diverse audiences, especially across race, class, level of education, and political affiliation.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
What does it mean to engage in “good relations” in worlds that unfold after violence and destruction? How does STS respond to wounded worlds? This panel interrogates the vitalities of destruction not from universalist standpoints but from the politics wounded knowledges, ecologies of practice, and geographies demand. We think with those Argentinian Mothers of Plaza de Mayo who reject economic reparations as a way to keep the wounds of state terror open; the expansion of extractivist practices in a “post-conflict” Colombia —which also organizes the assassination of those who seek alternative worldings; and the Original Peoples in Tierra del Fuego who, after being objectivized as extinct, are re-emerging as wounded collectives. We want to think how to politicize the marks that borders and divides make upon subjects, natures, and knowledges. How does one re-politize their excesses? the failed separations (Segato, 2018), the “interstitial tissue of the social” that connects/separates worlds after violence (Dewachi 2015), or the “not-seen” of destructing worlds that are also exceeded by the impossibility of such destruction and separation (de la Cadena, 2017). We seek a feminist contribution that acknowledges how technoscience is not only situated but also traced, marked, and haunted by histories and stories of violence and displacement. How can feminist STS doings avow these histories and stories? Contributions might focus on wounded knowledges, subjects, histories, and narratives, on the worlding of ending worlds, post-conflict scenarios, postcolonial politics, postnatural effects, ecologies of late capitalism, extinction, disappearance, after life, after atrocity, and after destruction.
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Since Daiwie Fu first asked ‘how far can East Asian STS go?’ in the inaugural issue of East Asian Science, Technology and Society in 2007, many scholars have considered the limits and possibilities of STS in the Asian region. This open panel seeks to build on these conversations, drawing on empirical studies of technoscience within, across and beyond Asia.
A persistent theme in explorations of STS and Asia has been the troubling of critiques based on west/non-west binaries, recognizing instead processes of creolization, hybridity and syncretism in both technoscience and in STS scholarship. As the centre of geopolitical gravity shifts to what is increasingly called the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Asia is the site of novel imaginaries and bold experimentation in every aspect of 21st century life – from energy transition to biosecurity to gene editing to surveillance capitalism – that are shaped by intersecting legacies of European and Asian colonialisms, ongoing Indigenous dispossession and persecution of minority groups, ecological collapse and acute vulnerability to climate change.
Contributing to discussions that have begun through the new TransAsiaSTS Network, we seek papers on all aspects of technoscience that contribute to answering questions such as: What can STS offer the study of technoscience in Asia and what does Asia offer STS? What kind of categories are ‘STS in Asia’ or ‘Asian STS’? How do they relate to Indigenous, queer, feminist, postcolonial, decolonial, and posthuman inflections of STS scholarship? How can scholarly infrastructures better support STS research and research training in the region? How can collaborations in the region contribute to building solidarities and strengthening civil societies? How might these in turn inform practical efforts on the ground? What possibilities can emerge from comparisons of STS in/from/and Asia and other regional formations, located in Northern as well as Southern contexts?
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
Science and engineering education bear significant responsibility in fostering democratic and just technoscientific practice, especially given the complicity of technoscience in several social injustices. For example, AI-based surveillance has reinforced the marginalization of minorities, while the use of toxic chemicals in the electronics industry has caused several worker miscarriages. However, pressured by a market-driven system that prioritizes technical skills, this responsibility is often relegated to ethics or STS courses that are separated from the core science/engineering curriculum. Further, as Dr. Timnit Gebru’s recent exit from Google illustrates, the environments of professional technoscience are often themselves averse to critically analyzing issues of social justice and ethics in their practice. Consequently, science and engineering students seldom learn how to engage with social justice as it relates to the subject-matter and methods of technoscience. This is problematic as it can promote agnosticism or even antagonism towards considering the role of technoscience in perpetuating social injustices and inequity. 
How can we teach science/engineering for social justice in a system that often devalues social justice? In this panel, we invite submissions that critically engage with this question through theoretical and/or practical work. Examples include but are not limited to (re)designing and discussing:
	•	Classroom strategies, courses, or curricula
	•	Digital educational media such as games, simulations, and information visualizations
	•	Policies and power dynamics of the educational system
	•	Personal narratives as educators, administrators, or students
as they relate to the challenges of teaching science/engineering for social justice.
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The infrastructure and practices for administering colonization, slavery, and capitalist heritable property relations are the basis for proliferating genealogical technologies, from DNA databases to family tree websites. These technologies materially and socially support white settler genealogical practices that identify away from responsibilities for the material conditions and effects of whiteness, and towards race shifting and the appropriation of racialized identities. 
However, increasingly people are also developing projects for claiming kin that do not erase the histories and ongoing practices of land theft, genocide, enslavement, and border militarism. Examples include projects such as Enslaved: Peoples of the Historic Slave Trade, and work by scholars like Darryl Laroux, who traces genealogical claims to Metis identity made by white settlers in the Canadian context. Such projects situate people in their family and social milieus, including as captives and captors, on lands that have histories, enabling forms of reckoning and a reconsideration of “good relations.”
For this open panel, we invite papers that investigate data, stories, material practices, and dreaming that allow people to claim kin other than the typical history of genealogy. What are the forms of relationality through which people might “claim bad kin,” or collect their relations when their relations are the agents of tremendous harm? What practices of claiming kin resist the social organization of forgetting of histories, familial and otherwise, that fall outside the settler state’s conception of being related? How do we build relationality in new kin formations, and what social and technical practices support such work?
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.