An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
An obsession with “scaling up” has captured contemporary innovation discourses and, with it, political and economic life. Perhaps most visible in the rise of big tech, big data, and venture capitalism, scalability thinking has also permeated public policy in the search for transformative solutions to “grand societal challenges,” calls for “entrepreneurial statehood”, or scalable experimental interventions in “living labs” and “evidence-based policy-making.” 
This panel aims to interrogate scalability as a paradigm and ordering logic in the era of big tech. We seek to explore how actors mobilize, stabilize, and exploit notions of scalability in discourses, instruments, and practices. The panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions exploring how the current preoccupation with scalability reconfigures political and economic power, e.g. by invading problem diagnoses as well as normative understandings of how society functions and who authorizes social change, and what kind of frictions it begets. We also welcome critical perspectives on how STS’s engaged program can come to terms with the “politics of scaling” as a powerful corollary of the “politics of technology” that might require new tools and interventions. The panel hopes to stimulate cross-conversations between STS, anthropology, geography, political economy and other fields concerned with a critical analysis of scalability thinking.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
This session explores the multitude of ways that colonial, settler science in Canada masquerades as democratic, and how some Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors are unsettling what counts as ‘Canadian’ science. Technoscientific institutions and practices are a primary modality through which the settler colonial state inflicts violence, and this violence is enacted both materially and epistemically. We suggest that technoscientific practice—be it microbiology, genomics, demography, fisheries, mining, forestry, or data science and AI—continues to do the work of the contemporary colonial state in Canada by reinforcing colonial hierarchies and exclusion, legitimating capitalist extraction, propping up liberal ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and enabling cultural genocide. This panel also addresses Canadian scientific and innovation infrastructure—tri-council funding agencies and academic and federal science—to consider how funding and research structures enable the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous knowledges and practices. 
We invite contributions from scholars exploring a range of technoscientific practices, actors, and areas of expertise in the Canadian context to examine the national politics of transnational technoscience in the settler state. How has settler science worked to delegitimize Indigenous-led projects? How can we remake technoscientific methods in order to move toward caring, good relations? We seek papers that offer empirically grounded analyses of the relations and material practices that make up settler science. By examining the ways in which Canadian technoscience might be unsettled and decolonized, we aim to facilitate urgently-needed conversations in STS on the possibilities for challenging the persistent colonial work of Canadian scientific projects.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Current changes in cannabis regulatory policies, fueled by the debate over its medical use, spell out a political engagement allied with an epistemic work of producing knowledge about this plant and its properties in order to challenge prohibitionist regulation and (re-)normalize the relationship between humans and cannabis from a therapeutic perspective.  This is a broad issue that encompasses different knowledge fields such as public health, security, international relations, political economy and involves moral issues as individual liberty, human agency and inequality. In this context, this open panel seeks to bring together researchers dedicated to the theme of regulating the uses of cannabis with the aim of promoting a reflexive debate on the implications of these recent developments for the STS field and for society. Papers analyzing the prohibitionist paradigm and its political, economic, legal and scientific implications and the emergence of new modes of regulation and research on the use, cultivation, commercialization, production of sociability and knowledge about the plant are welcome. The proposal converges with the theme of the conference around Good Relations, the modes of knowledge production that link scientific practices with practices of solidarity and care, of combating structures of inequality and oppression, of relations between humans and non-humans, in a highly politicized field of studies and focused on the research of a morally saturated plant and whose connections with processes of domination over minorities are established in the scientific literature.
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
Whether tendered as an intimately interpersonal exchange or in the form of technological and institutional interventions, care is constituted by quasi-economic practices of valuation and exchange. The work of care is also animated by economic and financial dynamics: caring practices are increasingly subject to commodification, rationalization, stratification, automation, and AI-ification/big data-fication. The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed macroeconomies of care where regimes of value, ministration, provision, dispossession, and affective investment are established, contested, and endured. 
Articulating with the conference theme “Good Relations,” this panel invites interdisciplinary reflections on the ambivalent, generative relationship between the concepts of “care” and “economy.” Submissions might explore individual case studies of “caring economies” and/or theorize and speculate more generally: 
– How do practices of care function quasi-economically, empowering or dispossessing their agents and subjects?
– How do the values, perspectives, and methods of “the dismal science” affect social practices of giving and receiving care?
– How and where do caring practices intersect with economic forms and circulations? How and where are economies founded on practices of care? How, and to what ends, has care become economized, financialized, and commodified?
– How are caring economies scientized and rationalized, and to what ends?
– How do economic activities, discourses, and practices enable the provision or withholding of care?
– How do caring economies interact with established and emerging technologies for the care of others or the self?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
This panel builds on feminist STS commitments to a knowledge politics of care and attends to the affective troubles that emerge in interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly those between ethnographers and technoscientists. We seek testimonies and both embodied and empirical knowledge on how ethnographers negotiate our roles in integrative research when constrained by what our technoscientific collaborators want, what funders want, what our home institutions expect, what we want to learn from the worlds we study, and the social transformations we envision within and beyond science. Questions that animate our collective inquiry include:
How do ethnographers negotiate the politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? Specifically, how can we enact and advance testimonial justice, mutual intelligibility, and reciprocality across unequal power relations and differences in disciplinary cultures and social identities?
How do ethnographers care about and for our collaborators, stakeholders, funders, careers and incomes, and commitments to justice at all stages of collaborative research, including project design, funding proposals, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination?
What labor becomes visible when attending ethnographically to politics of care in interdisciplinary collaborations? What equitable relations become possible?
How is work distributed in integrative research, and what roles do disciplinary status, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality play both in its allocation and recognition?
How do ethnographers navigate our status as insiders or outsiders, supporters or critics, or researchers or consultants?
Where does theorizing end and social transformation begin, and who is responsible for demarcating these engagements within integrative research?
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Despite its continued importance as an analytical category in the social life of south asia, and south asians globally, caste as a lens or a category of analysis has historically remained relatively undertheorized in the social studies of science and technology. If at all, caste has largely figured as an identity category in extant work. Can reframing the study of caste as a study of technoscience improve our engagements with caste as a social category as well as that of the social study of science and technology? What conceptual and methodological toolkit would such a move need? How are caste and technoscience intertwined? Is caste an historically morphing assemblage which shapeshifts as new sociotechnical arrangements become possible/are enabled by it? If so, what new ways of thinking about caste are enabled when we approach ‘caste’ as technoscience? And vice versa, what new ways of thinking about technoscience are enabled as we think about ‘technoscience’ as caste?
This panel invites papers that work with caste not only in axes of identity vis a vis technoscientific worlds but also think through caste as technoscience. These may range from case studies of sociotechnical assemblages that converge around different kinds of  “work,” debates around labour and caste relations, discursive efforts towards castelessness in the name of “merit,” to theoretical pieces that reflect on methodological concerns on the matter which address the co-construction and reification of the caste system through technoscientific practices, imagination and rhetoric in different communities of South Asia and its diaspora.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Science and technology communities come in many forms, from the elite community of research scientists within the academy to the myriad grassroots communities that spring up to take direct action on technology policy issues. Yet despite this wide variation in technoscience communities, many continue to reproduce gendered patterns of exclusion visible in science and technology more broadly.
This panel provides space for critiquing community practices and structures of exclusion that contribute to limiting who can participate in the production of technoscientific knowledge, who can contribute to decision-making around policy and innovation priorities, and who gets to design the technological products and infrastructure that shape our lives. But, in line with this year’s theme of “good relations”, it also aims to celebrate successful inclusion strategies, to identify replicable practices for enhancing community diversity, and to highlight radical experiments in relationship-building and community development. We believe that this year, of all years, this celebration of progress is particularly important.
We welcome contributions–from any geographical location in the Global South or North–that explore feminist community inclusion strategies from a wide range of theoretical approaches. These could include (but are not limited to): communities of practice; space and place-making; social field theory; identity theory; affect theory; participatory design and co-design practices; and critical making. We also welcome practice-oriented presentations that are not necessarily based in theory. We particularly welcome intersectional contributions that look at issues of gender inclusion/exclusion alongside axes of “race”, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, transgender status, sexual identity, etc.
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
Whether one characterises STS as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, a full-fledge discipline, or otherwise, it is a body of knowledges and academic practices with its own core ideas, concepts, texts, journals, and professional associations. Yet education in STS is much less standardized than in other established fields and disciplines. While STS graduate programs exist in various forms and under various titles almost globally, undergraduate programs are much less common. Furthermore, given their interdisciplinarity, STS undergraduate programs face distinct sets of pedagogical and institutional challenges in terms of getting them established, as well as operating and maintaining them. At the same time, STS undergraduate programs are uniquely positioned to offer students with aspirations both within and outside the field, a set of theories, practices and methods that equip them to understand and address problems of inequality and uncertainty within our communities, institutions, and world.
We invite papers that reflect on the pedagogical and institutional dynamics of teaching STS and developing STS programs at the undergraduate level. Submissions can be connected -but are not limited- to:
•Undergraduate awareness of and general visibility of STS as a field
•Impacts of disciplinary dynamics within STS on education and programing  
•Interdisciplinary education
•Relationships with natural science programs, students, and faculty (i.e. Science Wars in education, the place of STS in mainstream STEM education)
•Program development: majors, minors, core courses and electives
•Institutional dynamics of program development
•Appropriate modes of assessment
•Researching STS pedagogy
•Teaching the STS canon – best practices
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
While hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts threaten much of the planet, the oil, gas, and coal industries are changing so rapidly that interpretation struggles to keep pace. Changes to extractive industries are in some cases linked to the climate crisis, but are also driven by global market perturbations, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other forces. In some interpretations, pressures on fossil fuel companies are opening up space for alternative technologies and lower-carbon imaginaries. From other perspectives, rapacious companies are finding ways to position themselves favorably in these rough waters, heeding the adage of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” In this paper session, we intend to address several questions about these processes of change. 
How are fossil fuel companies adapting to climate change, and even sponsoring climate adaptation initiatives? 
What are the dynamics of climate justice activism at the sites of fossil fuel production? 
How are the technosocial relations of fossil fuel extraction changing at different sites along the production chain in response to climate change and related crises? 
What new forms of expertise are authorized to deal with these industries? 
How do both experts and laypeople create knowledge that can help them understand and navigate the intersecting changes to the climate and the industries upon which they depend? 
How can crisis in the oil and gas industry be capitalized upon, not by industry actors but by those seeking more just and sustainable energy relations?
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
In this panel, we consider the role of method in citizen science – broadly understood as a process in which communities and individuals perform scientific research with or without professional scientists.  Methods are fundamentally important in citizen science, for instance because they enable actors to generate data and validate scientific claims. Yet, the performative role of citizen science methods often remains obscured, as do the assumptions and values that inform them. As John Law (2004) has argued, research methods do more than “just describe social realities”; they are also involved in creating these realities. This raises the question of what kind of world we want to create with citizen science approaches. Acknowledging the growing number of citizen science practices in various disciplines (medicine, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, etc.) and the proliferation of these practices for a range of uses within the context of the Internet of Things (Gabrys 2018), we ask what the “methods” of citizen science entail and what they do: Which methods are deemed credible in citizen science? By whom and why? Which purposes do these methods serve? How are they conceptualized? How are they naturalized, problematized, or transformed? How are they communicated to wider audiences, and how are they received? Given the focus of the conference, presenters are encouraged to explore these questions from various angles, including non-western perspectives and contexts; and drawing on feminist, queer, transnational, and indigenous scholarship.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
Climate change and climate policies relate to various regimes of time: geological epochs, the long-term consequences of the use of fossil fuels, investment cycles, technology development trajectories, the length of regulatory and legislative procedures, the periods elected governments have executive power, tipping points and points of no-return, subjective time perceptions, and even eschatological vision of the end of times.
The panel ‘Climate change and the governance of time’ seeks to investigate how climate policies interrelate with different regimes of time, which challenges this poses and which novel issues arise. It is interested in particular in how different regimes of time problematize the coming-into-being of collective climate agreements and long-term collaborations; and how different institutions and technologies ‘mediate’ time regimes and connect and disconnect them to climate policies.
The panel welcomes empirical, normative, conceptual and speculative analyses regarding long-term climate policies that consider the relations between humans, other earthlings, climate change and policy in relation to their various cycles, rhythms and tempi. Taking into account questions of transnational, intergenerational and ecological justice, differences of scale and (uncertain) knowledge in the realms of the commons, our aim is to collect empirical and conceptual papers dealing with the large question of the governance of time in relation to climate policies.
In these times of shifting climate relations, we find technoscience regimes bound up in assemblages of data produced with predictive models; data that shape the agendas of international political convenings; data about topics as disparate as temperature, displacement, and armed conflict; data that deal in narratives about the future while vying to mediate relations in the present. How do we responsibly make sense of predictive climate models, their data, their code, and their attendant relations of power? How might we responsibly unpack these data and models while intervening in processes through which they uphold and reproduce systemic forms of oppression? Dare we envision better or even good climate data relations? This panel welcomes papers at the intersection of environmental humanities, critical data studies, critical code studies, Indigenous STS, feminist STS, migration studies, and critical race studies.
In these times of shifting climate relations, we find technoscience regimes bound up in assemblages of data produced with predictive models; data that shape the agendas of international political convenings; data about topics as disparate as temperature, displacement, and armed conflict; data that deal in narratives about the future while vying to mediate relations in the present. How do we responsibly make sense of predictive climate models, their data, their code, and their attendant relations of power? How might we responsibly unpack these data and models while intervening in processes through which they uphold and reproduce systemic forms of oppression? Dare we envision better or even good climate data relations? This panel welcomes papers at the intersection of environmental humanities, critical data studies, critical code studies, Indigenous STS, feminist STS, migration studies, and critical race studies.
In these times of shifting climate relations, we find technoscience regimes bound up in assemblages of data produced with predictive models; data that shape the agendas of international political convenings; data about topics as disparate as temperature, displacement, and armed conflict; data that deal in narratives about the future while vying to mediate relations in the present. How do we responsibly make sense of predictive climate models, their data, their code, and their attendant relations of power? How might we responsibly unpack these data and models while intervening in processes through which they uphold and reproduce systemic forms of oppression? Dare we envision better or even good climate data relations? This panel welcomes papers at the intersection of environmental humanities, critical data studies, critical code studies, Indigenous STS, feminist STS, migration studies, and critical race studies.
In these times of shifting climate relations, we find technoscience regimes bound up in assemblages of data produced with predictive models; data that shape the agendas of international political convenings; data about topics as disparate as temperature, displacement, and armed conflict; data that deal in narratives about the future while vying to mediate relations in the present. How do we responsibly make sense of predictive climate models, their data, their code, and their attendant relations of power? How might we responsibly unpack these data and models while intervening in processes through which they uphold and reproduce systemic forms of oppression? Dare we envision better or even good climate data relations? This panel welcomes papers at the intersection of environmental humanities, critical data studies, critical code studies, Indigenous STS, feminist STS, migration studies, and critical race studies.
In these times of shifting climate relations, we find technoscience regimes bound up in assemblages of data produced with predictive models; data that shape the agendas of international political convenings; data about topics as disparate as temperature, displacement, and armed conflict; data that deal in narratives about the future while vying to mediate relations in the present. How do we responsibly make sense of predictive climate models, their data, their code, and their attendant relations of power? How might we responsibly unpack these data and models while intervening in processes through which they uphold and reproduce systemic forms of oppression? Dare we envision better or even good climate data relations? This panel welcomes papers at the intersection of environmental humanities, critical data studies, critical code studies, Indigenous STS, feminist STS, migration studies, and critical race studies.
In these times of shifting climate relations, we find technoscience regimes bound up in assemblages of data produced with predictive models; data that shape the agendas of international political convenings; data about topics as disparate as temperature, displacement, and armed conflict; data that deal in narratives about the future while vying to mediate relations in the present. How do we responsibly make sense of predictive climate models, their data, their code, and their attendant relations of power? How might we responsibly unpack these data and models while intervening in processes through which they uphold and reproduce systemic forms of oppression? Dare we envision better or even good climate data relations? This panel welcomes papers at the intersection of environmental humanities, critical data studies, critical code studies, Indigenous STS, feminist STS, migration studies, and critical race studies.
In these times of shifting climate relations, we find technoscience regimes bound up in assemblages of data produced with predictive models; data that shape the agendas of international political convenings; data about topics as disparate as temperature, displacement, and armed conflict; data that deal in narratives about the future while vying to mediate relations in the present. How do we responsibly make sense of predictive climate models, their data, their code, and their attendant relations of power? How might we responsibly unpack these data and models while intervening in processes through which they uphold and reproduce systemic forms of oppression? Dare we envision better or even good climate data relations? This panel welcomes papers at the intersection of environmental humanities, critical data studies, critical code studies, Indigenous STS, feminist STS, migration studies, and critical race studies.
In these times of shifting climate relations, we find technoscience regimes bound up in assemblages of data produced with predictive models; data that shape the agendas of international political convenings; data about topics as disparate as temperature, displacement, and armed conflict; data that deal in narratives about the future while vying to mediate relations in the present. How do we responsibly make sense of predictive climate models, their data, their code, and their attendant relations of power? How might we responsibly unpack these data and models while intervening in processes through which they uphold and reproduce systemic forms of oppression? Dare we envision better or even good climate data relations? This panel welcomes papers at the intersection of environmental humanities, critical data studies, critical code studies, Indigenous STS, feminist STS, migration studies, and critical race studies.
In these times of shifting climate relations, we find technoscience regimes bound up in assemblages of data produced with predictive models; data that shape the agendas of international political convenings; data about topics as disparate as temperature, displacement, and armed conflict; data that deal in narratives about the future while vying to mediate relations in the present. How do we responsibly make sense of predictive climate models, their data, their code, and their attendant relations of power? How might we responsibly unpack these data and models while intervening in processes through which they uphold and reproduce systemic forms of oppression? Dare we envision better or even good climate data relations? This panel welcomes papers at the intersection of environmental humanities, critical data studies, critical code studies, Indigenous STS, feminist STS, migration studies, and critical race studies.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
Coasts are resurging worldwide, as centers of commerce, nodes in global supply chains, and geopolitical borders. Coastal areas are undergoing massive reconstruction as governments mobilize capital and technology to protect inhabited shorelines against storm floods but also undesired migrants. Coastal securitization and fortification – often large-scale infrastructure projects in the form of sea walls and military checkpoints – sit uneasily with conservationist concerns and human rights. Coasts are not just important sites of control and earth management but also zones of conflict and contestation, as indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations question plans for extensive land reclamation and unsustainable urban development.
This panel addresses the broader social and cultural consequences of coastal transformations through the concept of coastalization. We invite panelists to closely examine coastal infrastructures and their role in attracting and rerouting (un)desired flows of materials, ideas, and people. What types of connection and relations does the resurgence of coasts (re)produce? What are the new intersections of environment, economy, and power driven by coastal dynamics? We invite dense ethnographic accounts that explore the novel more-than-human connections created at water’s edge. Panelists may show new ways of dwelling at, protecting, building, and engineering shores. We are particularly interested in reterritorializations of coasts – spatial mutations and infrastructural shifts – that let coasts shape terrestrial and maritime worlds beyond the immediate material encounter of land and sea. Panelists may think with the coast as a “meeting place,” sites of multispecies entanglement, or conceptual figure to reveal the coastal moment in globalization.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
The nature of ‘going to work’ is changing in fundamental ways. First, AI-driven automation has the potential to displace increasingly-broad sets of roles, including an expansion into and beyond service roles traditionally performed by humans. Further, issues raised among research into the growing gig economy have brought to the fore the potential for unfair treatment and unjust employment dynamics among those undertaking short-term, self-directed work. Finally, workers possess, to an increasing degree, the necessary skills and expertise to automate significant portions of their own work, threatening their job stability and leading to what might be thought of as ‘self-obsolescence’. These workers may be newly or imminently displaced by novel implementations of AI, may find the circumstances of their work life to be substantially changed, or may have to operate under the often under-negotiated and under-secure conditions of the gig economy. Today, during what is perhaps the most dramatic period of growth in remote work, there is a growing need to closely examine collective organizing as job roles, daily practice, and even demographics shift alongside mediating technologies. With an eye toward the future of work, it is of pressing importance to consider whether the basic practices and roles of collective organizing still apply, or if they might need significant readjustment. In this panel, we invite papers that consider how workers can, do, and should advocate for themselves and act collectively.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
As a result of the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many newly under- and unemployed individuals have turned to Multi-Level Marketing companies (MLMs), which offer tempting rewards and the illusion of easy success. By forcing “independent contractors” to recruit friends and family, the MLM business model operates under an even more remorseless form of the “exploit or be exploited” capitalistic maxim, but these notorious ventures are only one example of the commodification of our social relationships. 
This panel will broadly address the ways personal relationships can be commodified, questioning the neoliberal economics and politics that promote the exploitation of our social lives. Some areas to consider include: hierarchies of friendship, often among women, within MLMs; recruitment and reward systems in cults and fundamentalist religious sects; social media and the quantification of friendship; the parasocial performance of intimacy within “influencer” culture; biotechnology companies gathering and selling genetic data; and other areas of study. When we have “good relations” with one another, how soon before those relations are mined for their commodity value? And how might awareness of this cycle allow individuals and communities to resist in creative, generative ways that foster even deeper connections? 
We welcome submissions that address topics from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including, but not limited to, social epistemology, feminist and queer STS, information studies, critical racial and economic justice, Indigenous ways of knowing, and disability studies. In bringing varied perspectives on commodified relationships into conversation with one another, this panel will support resistance through the formation of critical networks vigilantly aware of their potential for exploitation.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Composting, as a feminist practice, has been taken up by an open, cross-institutional, trans-disciplinary reading and research group exploring the traces, legacies and relations between inclusive feminisms and broad Environmental Humanities over the last six years. The Composting Feminisms and Environmental Humanities group wishes to connect with composting kin around the world through this second open panel at 4S. At 4S 2018 we held a full day of interconnecting open discussions examining the transnational intersections between new environmentalisms and feminist STS. Forming good relations and worlding better worlds informs all of our endeavors, making 4S 2020 an ideal venue for Composting. 
The Composting group exists because although we cannot envision feminisms without attending to queer, Indigenous, anti-racist, anticolonial, crip, and other intersectional perspectives, often environmental thought neglects these questions. How might we attune ourselves to the ways in which new ideas are indebted to writings, readings and practices that have come before? How are feminist genealogies composted in and through the Environmental Humanities? What ethics of care and responsibility emerge from these ideas? What is yet to be added to the compost pile? We encourage submissions that continue the process of breaking down matters to re-emerge as new matters. Together we attune ourselves to the good (and fraught) relations that already exist and are yet to be formed between these modes of knowing.
To expand the conversation, submissions that queer the traditional format and offer creative provocations which embody the research are encouraged, including performances, ficto-criticism, art and speculative design.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
Despite the ongoing interest in the history, epistemology, sociology, and cultures of computing and its defining practices (see Benjamin 2019, Mackenzie 2001, Roberge & Castelle 2020), the study of computational media remains largely dispersed across a wide range of discipline specific venues. Inspired by the more systemic examinations of computing advanced by fields like critical AI studies, indigenous STS, and media anthropology, however, this open call aims to bring together scholars who share a similar interest in understanding the transdisciplinary complexities, alternative histories, and political a prioris behind computational media. 
With that intention in mind, we propose to consider computation as a paradigmatic ‘media technology’ whose entanglement with questions of both mediation and technoscience promises to renew the study of technical cultures at large. Computational media, we contend, provides a rich, boundary (defying) object around which the disciplinary perspective of media studies, history of technology, and science studies can be made to converge. Not only does computational media relate contemporary technoscience to the cybernetic and cyborgial origins of computing (see Haraway 1985, Hayles 1999, Medina 2011), it also forces us to consider mediation as a structuring principle of technoscientific cultures, practices and epistemologies (see Kittler 1986, Chun 2011). In that context, this open call invites scholars across fields to submit projects which both revisit dominant discourses surrounding the study of computational media as well as challenge the disciplinary frameworks in which they have been historically concentrated. All papers engaging historically, culturally, politically, sociologically, and/or materially with computational media are welcome.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
The world is at stake. Pandemics, climate change, species extinctions, and toxic waste confront policy-makers, scientists, artists, activists, and citizens from around the planet.
But what does it mean to be in a world? Are there many worlds or just one? And what kinds of worlds do we want to make? If worlds, as Donna Haraway writes, are not given so much as made, then what other worlds are possible? And how can they be brought into being? “Worlds” and “worlding” have emerged as productive theoretical and practical concepts in science studies as well as other fields. “World” is a seductive concept because of its expansiveness, drawing attention to the relationships between the global, the planetary, and the (other)worldly. Following Jakob Von Uexküll, “world” can make inroads into nonhuman or multispecies domains. “Worlding” inspires flights of imagination, as in the world-building stories of speculative fiction. “World” is helpful in thinking about incommensurabilities and alterities. Scholars have mobilized “world” to think of culture and context differently, as an alternative to fraught analytics such as the “global” or “scalability” and their imperial and universalizing ambitions.
In this session, we invite presentations that critically reflect on the ordering concept of “world” and to consider new directions for investigating the world or worlds in science studies. What does this concept afford us? How might worlds serve epistemically, ontologically, or politically? What are the ethical stakes of worlds or worlding? We welcome traditional or multimodal presentations that explore these questions.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Techno-science, and the changes wrought by techno-science, frequently result in pushback. While such resistance can be grounded in attention to risks and social justice issues, this resistance can also take the form of conspiratorial reactions. From climate change denial to anti-vaccine movements, from fears of 5G towers to UFOs, from pseudoscience to conspiracy theories—instead of settling contentious debates, the creation of techno-scientific evidence has repeatedly led to conflict over what it is that particular evidence truly shows. Not simply consisting of a rejection of techno-science, conspiracy adherents marshal government documents and scientific reports in order to push for conclusions other than those found in those materials; with many conspiracy advocates learning to skillfully deploy the language of expertise in order to bolster, and spread, their claims.      
This session engages with the conference theme of “good relations” by approaching the matter of relations from the opposite direction. We seek to investigate the sorts of “bad,” “inappropriate,” “conspiratorial,” or “unforeseen” relations that emerge from modes of techno-scientific expertise and knowledge making. In what ways does the same evidence get mobilized by groups with differing agendas to advance bizarre claims? How have different media technologies afforded the efficient spread of such thinking? Beyond treating them as a source purely for concern or derision, what can (or should) STS scholars learn from studying pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? Beyond an assemblage of case studies, we hope our panel will demonstrate how views that are often treated as unserious deserve serious critical attention.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
Predicting and planning for the future is an inherently uncertain exercise. In the midst of unfolding health and environmental crises, forecasting the implications of different types of interventions is important but precarious. With exhortations from governments to ‘flatten the curve,’ simulation modelling has recently gained prominence in public consciousness as a potent tool informing COVID policies. The simplicity of the models stands in stark contrast to the complexity of the challenges at hand. This panel explores ways for STS to interpret and inform debates around ‘modelling’ practice and public understandings of models for the future. How and why are simulation models so seductive? How are models shaping concepts of ‘self’ and ‘future’? What kinds of knowledges and assumptions are built into these speculative exercises and what (or who) is left out? Can models help build ‘good relations’ between governments and citizens, or between diverse stakeholders approaching complex problems? 
The panel invites papers that engage with critical approaches to modelling practice and models as symbols circulating in complex systems. We also encourage papers that explore alternative methods for engaging in forecasting and scenario building that may better be able to encompass complex intervention dynamics and marginalized futures.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a global crisis challenging humankind to develop as quickly as possible reliable knowledge about the virus and its devastating effects on our bodies and societies in order to minimize such harms. This situation of great uncertainty and enormous stakes incited a historically unique international knowledge producing effort by institutionalized scientists and research groups. While debate and disagreement exists within these scientific communities, more controversial are the various competing “outside” forms and sources of information on the virus and its mitigation strategies. Some are clear disinformation campaigns or far-fetched conspiracy theories, others are legitimate challenges to the temporary status quo. In the hyper-mobile context of knowledge production during an evolving pandemic, it is often hard to tell the difference. Questions such as ‘what information is reliable?’, ‘which experts should we follow?’, and ‘what (epistemic) authorities are to trust?’, take center stage in public debates. Prevalent clear-cut distinctions between “real” knowledge controversies and “fake” disruptions of scientific progress obscure the fact that the global quest for truthful knowledge about the virus is entangled with various (geo)political dynamics, government policy pressures, media reporting, platform moderation and public understandings of it all. STS scholars are perfectly equipped with concepts, theories and methods to help understand these complex dynamics involving uncertainty, changing insights, and (covert) manipulation. In this panel we invite scholars working on such “corona truth wars”: we welcome both empirical and theoretical studies on the cultures, politics and technologies of today’s corona knowledge contestations.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.
Situated Computations is an approach to design and computation that grounds technologies in the social world by acknowledging the historical, cultural, and material contexts of designing and making. It acknowledges and responds to a setting’s social and technological infrastructures, and refuses to remain ignorant of economic and political structures that shape it (Noel 2020). In conversation with the conference theme, we invite scholarship that reflects on manual and digital practices to reveal ways in which existing and new oppressions in these sites are maintained or challenged. Our purpose is to examine manual and technological practices inside and outside academia through STS lenses of feminism, post-colonialism, and justice. We ask: How might analog and digital methods contribute to, destroy, or bridge long standing oppressions and strategic sortings of society? How might we conceptualize “good” relations in these practices to frame and enact new relations that confront colonialism, racism, and inequality? We invite works that explore theories, methods and expressions around craft, justice, and technology. How might praxis in situated computations help us identify and reclaim marginalized spaces? What new academic spaces might we reimagine to renegotiate and challenge power relations between those “inside” and those “outside” academia? What links may we draw between the lived experiences of craftspersons and the design of technological systems? Our goal is to imagine how praxis between craft and technological systems can be a source of theoretical and methodological interventions that can attend to racism, inequality and other oppressions in technoscience.