Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
Since the discovery in 2015 of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, research into its applications for has exploded. The use of CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies has enabled scientists to edit the genomes of organisms with an unparalleled level of accuracy and specificity making feasible the genomic editing of environments and ecosystems. Scientists have pointed out that the new technologies like “gene drives”, which nearly guarantee the inheritance of targeted genes, could be used for admirable public health goals such as transforming or suppressing harmful populations of malaria transmitting mosquitoes or schistosomiasis-carrying snails. Environmentalists have similarly suggested that gene drives be used to suppress populations of harmful or invasive species, such as lionfish. Theoretically, these technologies appear remarkably promising. Yet important questions regarding their regulation, usage and development remain underexplored. This panel solicits submissions from groups or individuals of any background interested in developing a rich conversation regarding historical and ongoing attempts to molecularly edit environments with an emphasis on gene drive technologies. Ideally, presenters would explore gene drives in all their complexity, from their social and economic context to their political and environmental implications. This panel would especially welcome papers that document scientific and regulatory processes through which these technologies must go through with a careful attention to empirical detail.
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
STS scholarship on technopolitics typically examines the role that governments and state organizations play in producing, enabling, and leveraging data, technology, and science. Technocratic projects like conducting censuses, modeling weather, producing medicines, constructing computers or developing weapons serve both state and scientific masters. While the legitimacy of these investments are often intertwined with the legitimacy of state power, such power — and legitimacy — also relies upon scientific development and the sustained production of technoscientific imaginaries. 
Yet recent years have witnessed a range of governmental actions around the world designed to purposefully delegitimize states’ technoscientific investments. Politicians work to dismantle state-funded scientific efforts, often under the guise of free-market commitments and austerity principles. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the global cost of distrust in public-sector science, technology, and data. Even as scientists produced a vaccine with unprecedented speed, governments around the world failed to track the spread of the virus, let alone provide data to enable decision-making. In some countries, political leaders are propagated conspiracies and “fake science”, undermining public health and scientific development. 
Just as governments can help advance science, technology, and data, they may also choose to strategically curb such pursuits — or actively undermine their legitimacy.
This panel examines how public-sector technoscientific efforts are made legitimate, and how that legitimacy is strategically undermined. We ask, how are state-sponsored science and technology projects legitimated? How can this legitimacy come undone? How can trust in public-sector technoscience be repaired?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
The deepening datafication of urban life has had profound impacts on the organization, exploitation, and circulation of natural, social, economic, and political resources. These impacts are often material—for example in the extraction of minerals required to build digital devices or in the siting of data centers—and often discursive—as digitization becomes a rationale and logic guiding urbanization and new forms of data colonialism. What underlies them all is a unique set of circulations, movement, flows, and streams.
In particular, streams of data make the circulations visible and governable. The datafication of urban services (e.g., energy, transportation, water, and waste) allows for real-time, fine-grained identification, quantification, and spatialization of all sorts of flows running across urban space. This key idea behind “smart city” discourses promises more control over urban space, urban metabolism, and streams of privately-held revenue.
This panel explores how data capture, channel, and tame streams, circulation, and flows across urban space. We are especially (but not exclusively) interested in empirical and theoretical contributions from the Global South, and studies attuned to human and non-human relations.
Questions
How has datafication, and the processes necessitating, facilitating, and emanating from it, transformed the ecologies and resources subtending urban space and urbanization?
How are flows initiated, maintained, and terminated for particular political and economic interests?
How do digital and analog urban infrastructures slow, accelerate, or direct these flows?
What sorts of knowledges and epistemologies are possible within this milieu, and how can we politicize them?
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Care practices were addressed in STS by Annemarie Mol (2002, 2008, 2010) as capturing a specific way of engaging with material reality as well as framing situated human relations. Hence, care bears not only upon intimacy or affectivity, but relates to forms of interdependency between ontology and normativity (“ontonorms”; Mol 2012).
The open panel starts from and further develops the discussions on relevance of care practices focussing on the (re)configurations of care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a discussion of „care“ takes up not only a currently highly relevant social topic, but also acknowledges the salient empirical shaping of theoretical reflections on care in STS as ways of handling reality and transforming social relations. 
While COVID-19 differently addresses virologists, clinicians, physicists, epidemiologists, immunologists, or economics (Mol and Hardon 2020), a wide range of practices of care proliferated in response to the health crisis beyond these formal and mainstream settings, draw mainly on spatial (and social) proximity (neighbourhoods, peer-groups), and emphasised a temporal continuity of the caring engagement (regular visits, extended homeschooling). In a word: specific (re)configurations of care are rendered visible in dealing with personal concern, vulnerability, and (inter)dependence (Kittay 2015). 
The panel welcomes contributions on topics as:
– expertise negotiated along care practices;
– care related to groups traditionally framed as disadvantaged: elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous people, and other culturally diverse groups;
– goods shaping actors understanding of care;
– alliances of human and non-human entities as modes of pragmatic coping with pandemic crisis;
– methodological adjustments regarding (re)configurations of care.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
Bioscientific approaches to identifying, classifying and diagnosing cancer have long enrolled practices that engage with the materiality of tumour tissues and cells, such as cytology and histology. In the contemporary era, scientific techniques detect and act upon cancer outwith tumour tissue itself. For example, pre-cells, inflammatory cells, immune system T cells and microbes are becoming understood to play a role in cancer. Molecular pathology has also allowed for exploration of the makeup of cancerous tissues as inscribed within genetic code, and can ‘diagnose’ predispositions to cancer. Such techniques, along with designations of cells as ‘pre-cancerous’, add a temporal dimension to the materiality of cancer. These approaches locate cancer within structures and organisms beyond the tangibility of tumour tissue, and demonstrate that various elements of bodies and their environments continuously interact to constitute the disease.
Contemporary scientific work thus generates a picture of cancer as more than malignant, fleshy tumours, with the disease materialising in genes, healthy cells, and wider (bodily) environments. This refigures the material constitution of cancer, blurs clinical categorisations of tissues and cells as malignant or benign, and prompts us to think about cancer in ways that unsettle widespread ‘fixed’ sociocultural understandings of the disease. In this session we will discuss configurations of cancer that disrupt understandings of the disease as manifested in a malignant, fleshy, tumour. We ask ‘what constitutes cancer?’ and address the implications of these diverse configurations for scientific and clinical practice, embodied experiences, patient subjectivities, and sociocultural depictions of cancer.
In recent years, an increasing amount of STS and STS-aligned scholarship has used provocative and conceptually creative ways to address the exceptional challenges posed by global climate change. A number of theoretical orientations have emerged within the field of Anthropocene studies, such as new materialism and Gaia-based approaches, offering sophisticated ways for scholars to think through the implications of climate change for both human and more-than-human life. However, these shifts have also inspired backlash from those who argue that the constant search for new theory obfuscates empirical realities and the politics of responsibility (Malm 2018). Particularly in light of the climate crisis, the at-times tenuous and overlapping relationships between theoretical creativity, empirical rigor, and everyday action demand renewed critical attention.
This panel seeks to critically engage these fragile relationships within Anthropocene STS scholarship to illuminate potentials for individual, academic, and political meaning in a warming world. How can scholars hold onto both climate realism and creative conceptualizations of more-than-humans? Does the urgency of global warming demand a more overt level of political engagement in academia? Can we effectively reconcile the conceptual utility of our theoretical methodologies with the pragmatic and embodied risks of ecological justice? We welcome papers which might address these multiscalar gaps, reframing potential discrepancies as constructive spaces of possibility for good relations between fellow earthlings.
In recent years, an increasing amount of STS and STS-aligned scholarship has used provocative and conceptually creative ways to address the exceptional challenges posed by global climate change. A number of theoretical orientations have emerged within the field of Anthropocene studies, such as new materialism and Gaia-based approaches, offering sophisticated ways for scholars to think through the implications of climate change for both human and more-than-human life. However, these shifts have also inspired backlash from those who argue that the constant search for new theory obfuscates empirical realities and the politics of responsibility (Malm 2018). Particularly in light of the climate crisis, the at-times tenuous and overlapping relationships between theoretical creativity, empirical rigor, and everyday action demand renewed critical attention.
This panel seeks to critically engage these fragile relationships within Anthropocene STS scholarship to illuminate potentials for individual, academic, and political meaning in a warming world. How can scholars hold onto both climate realism and creative conceptualizations of more-than-humans? Does the urgency of global warming demand a more overt level of political engagement in academia? Can we effectively reconcile the conceptual utility of our theoretical methodologies with the pragmatic and embodied risks of ecological justice? We welcome papers which might address these multiscalar gaps, reframing potential discrepancies as constructive spaces of possibility for good relations between fellow earthlings.
In recent years, an increasing amount of STS and STS-aligned scholarship has used provocative and conceptually creative ways to address the exceptional challenges posed by global climate change. A number of theoretical orientations have emerged within the field of Anthropocene studies, such as new materialism and Gaia-based approaches, offering sophisticated ways for scholars to think through the implications of climate change for both human and more-than-human life. However, these shifts have also inspired backlash from those who argue that the constant search for new theory obfuscates empirical realities and the politics of responsibility (Malm 2018). Particularly in light of the climate crisis, the at-times tenuous and overlapping relationships between theoretical creativity, empirical rigor, and everyday action demand renewed critical attention.
This panel seeks to critically engage these fragile relationships within Anthropocene STS scholarship to illuminate potentials for individual, academic, and political meaning in a warming world. How can scholars hold onto both climate realism and creative conceptualizations of more-than-humans? Does the urgency of global warming demand a more overt level of political engagement in academia? Can we effectively reconcile the conceptual utility of our theoretical methodologies with the pragmatic and embodied risks of ecological justice? We welcome papers which might address these multiscalar gaps, reframing potential discrepancies as constructive spaces of possibility for good relations between fellow earthlings.
Over the last 70 years, computational and networked media have become deeply integrated with higher education and have slowly adopted and integrated various technologies. The newest generation of technologies engaging higher education centers around what is popularly called artificial intelligence, otherwise known as machine learning.  Machine learning creates models that, in part self-design solutions that may include interaction, prediction, and other simulatable aspects.  This panel invites papers that engage with questions of academic automation, machine un/learning, and artificial non/intelligence in the academic context.  It seeks critical papers that examine questions around  automatic grading, artificial teaching assistants, robotic instructors, other academic technologies, and the transformation of the student and professor roles concerning these technologies.  
This panel also seeks papers that engage these technologies in other academic roles, such as research or service as work.  How are these technologies mediating different academic functions? Who benefits from these technologies? And who is privileged by them?
We have to consider the roles of craft, artistry, and humanity in those roles.  Is there an argument to be made for automation in the academy? Is there an argument to be made for AI/Machine learning in the academy?  What kind of relations do these establish?  Following Ivan Illich, should we be rethinking our relations to develop tools and systems that treat us as human, perhaps even more human than our current system? Following Virilio, what will be their accident?  What are the good relations between our academic institutions, their people, and these new technologies?
Over the last 70 years, computational and networked media have become deeply integrated with higher education and have slowly adopted and integrated various technologies. The newest generation of technologies engaging higher education centers around what is popularly called artificial intelligence, otherwise known as machine learning.  Machine learning creates models that, in part self-design solutions that may include interaction, prediction, and other simulatable aspects.  This panel invites papers that engage with questions of academic automation, machine un/learning, and artificial non/intelligence in the academic context.  It seeks critical papers that examine questions around  automatic grading, artificial teaching assistants, robotic instructors, other academic technologies, and the transformation of the student and professor roles concerning these technologies.  
This panel also seeks papers that engage these technologies in other academic roles, such as research or service as work.  How are these technologies mediating different academic functions? Who benefits from these technologies? And who is privileged by them?
We have to consider the roles of craft, artistry, and humanity in those roles.  Is there an argument to be made for automation in the academy? Is there an argument to be made for AI/Machine learning in the academy?  What kind of relations do these establish?  Following Ivan Illich, should we be rethinking our relations to develop tools and systems that treat us as human, perhaps even more human than our current system? Following Virilio, what will be their accident?  What are the good relations between our academic institutions, their people, and these new technologies?
Over the last 70 years, computational and networked media have become deeply integrated with higher education and have slowly adopted and integrated various technologies. The newest generation of technologies engaging higher education centers around what is popularly called artificial intelligence, otherwise known as machine learning.  Machine learning creates models that, in part self-design solutions that may include interaction, prediction, and other simulatable aspects.  This panel invites papers that engage with questions of academic automation, machine un/learning, and artificial non/intelligence in the academic context.  It seeks critical papers that examine questions around  automatic grading, artificial teaching assistants, robotic instructors, other academic technologies, and the transformation of the student and professor roles concerning these technologies.  
This panel also seeks papers that engage these technologies in other academic roles, such as research or service as work.  How are these technologies mediating different academic functions? Who benefits from these technologies? And who is privileged by them?
We have to consider the roles of craft, artistry, and humanity in those roles.  Is there an argument to be made for automation in the academy? Is there an argument to be made for AI/Machine learning in the academy?  What kind of relations do these establish?  Following Ivan Illich, should we be rethinking our relations to develop tools and systems that treat us as human, perhaps even more human than our current system? Following Virilio, what will be their accident?  What are the good relations between our academic institutions, their people, and these new technologies?
Over the last 70 years, computational and networked media have become deeply integrated with higher education and have slowly adopted and integrated various technologies. The newest generation of technologies engaging higher education centers around what is popularly called artificial intelligence, otherwise known as machine learning.  Machine learning creates models that, in part self-design solutions that may include interaction, prediction, and other simulatable aspects.  This panel invites papers that engage with questions of academic automation, machine un/learning, and artificial non/intelligence in the academic context.  It seeks critical papers that examine questions around  automatic grading, artificial teaching assistants, robotic instructors, other academic technologies, and the transformation of the student and professor roles concerning these technologies.  
This panel also seeks papers that engage these technologies in other academic roles, such as research or service as work.  How are these technologies mediating different academic functions? Who benefits from these technologies? And who is privileged by them?
We have to consider the roles of craft, artistry, and humanity in those roles.  Is there an argument to be made for automation in the academy? Is there an argument to be made for AI/Machine learning in the academy?  What kind of relations do these establish?  Following Ivan Illich, should we be rethinking our relations to develop tools and systems that treat us as human, perhaps even more human than our current system? Following Virilio, what will be their accident?  What are the good relations between our academic institutions, their people, and these new technologies?
Over the last 70 years, computational and networked media have become deeply integrated with higher education and have slowly adopted and integrated various technologies. The newest generation of technologies engaging higher education centers around what is popularly called artificial intelligence, otherwise known as machine learning.  Machine learning creates models that, in part self-design solutions that may include interaction, prediction, and other simulatable aspects.  This panel invites papers that engage with questions of academic automation, machine un/learning, and artificial non/intelligence in the academic context.  It seeks critical papers that examine questions around  automatic grading, artificial teaching assistants, robotic instructors, other academic technologies, and the transformation of the student and professor roles concerning these technologies.  
This panel also seeks papers that engage these technologies in other academic roles, such as research or service as work.  How are these technologies mediating different academic functions? Who benefits from these technologies? And who is privileged by them?
We have to consider the roles of craft, artistry, and humanity in those roles.  Is there an argument to be made for automation in the academy? Is there an argument to be made for AI/Machine learning in the academy?  What kind of relations do these establish?  Following Ivan Illich, should we be rethinking our relations to develop tools and systems that treat us as human, perhaps even more human than our current system? Following Virilio, what will be their accident?  What are the good relations between our academic institutions, their people, and these new technologies?
Over the last 70 years, computational and networked media have become deeply integrated with higher education and have slowly adopted and integrated various technologies. The newest generation of technologies engaging higher education centers around what is popularly called artificial intelligence, otherwise known as machine learning.  Machine learning creates models that, in part self-design solutions that may include interaction, prediction, and other simulatable aspects.  This panel invites papers that engage with questions of academic automation, machine un/learning, and artificial non/intelligence in the academic context.  It seeks critical papers that examine questions around  automatic grading, artificial teaching assistants, robotic instructors, other academic technologies, and the transformation of the student and professor roles concerning these technologies.  
This panel also seeks papers that engage these technologies in other academic roles, such as research or service as work.  How are these technologies mediating different academic functions? Who benefits from these technologies? And who is privileged by them?
We have to consider the roles of craft, artistry, and humanity in those roles.  Is there an argument to be made for automation in the academy? Is there an argument to be made for AI/Machine learning in the academy?  What kind of relations do these establish?  Following Ivan Illich, should we be rethinking our relations to develop tools and systems that treat us as human, perhaps even more human than our current system? Following Virilio, what will be their accident?  What are the good relations between our academic institutions, their people, and these new technologies?
Over the last 70 years, computational and networked media have become deeply integrated with higher education and have slowly adopted and integrated various technologies. The newest generation of technologies engaging higher education centers around what is popularly called artificial intelligence, otherwise known as machine learning.  Machine learning creates models that, in part self-design solutions that may include interaction, prediction, and other simulatable aspects.  This panel invites papers that engage with questions of academic automation, machine un/learning, and artificial non/intelligence in the academic context.  It seeks critical papers that examine questions around  automatic grading, artificial teaching assistants, robotic instructors, other academic technologies, and the transformation of the student and professor roles concerning these technologies.  
This panel also seeks papers that engage these technologies in other academic roles, such as research or service as work.  How are these technologies mediating different academic functions? Who benefits from these technologies? And who is privileged by them?
We have to consider the roles of craft, artistry, and humanity in those roles.  Is there an argument to be made for automation in the academy? Is there an argument to be made for AI/Machine learning in the academy?  What kind of relations do these establish?  Following Ivan Illich, should we be rethinking our relations to develop tools and systems that treat us as human, perhaps even more human than our current system? Following Virilio, what will be their accident?  What are the good relations between our academic institutions, their people, and these new technologies?
Over the last 70 years, computational and networked media have become deeply integrated with higher education and have slowly adopted and integrated various technologies. The newest generation of technologies engaging higher education centers around what is popularly called artificial intelligence, otherwise known as machine learning.  Machine learning creates models that, in part self-design solutions that may include interaction, prediction, and other simulatable aspects.  This panel invites papers that engage with questions of academic automation, machine un/learning, and artificial non/intelligence in the academic context.  It seeks critical papers that examine questions around  automatic grading, artificial teaching assistants, robotic instructors, other academic technologies, and the transformation of the student and professor roles concerning these technologies.  
This panel also seeks papers that engage these technologies in other academic roles, such as research or service as work.  How are these technologies mediating different academic functions? Who benefits from these technologies? And who is privileged by them?
We have to consider the roles of craft, artistry, and humanity in those roles.  Is there an argument to be made for automation in the academy? Is there an argument to be made for AI/Machine learning in the academy?  What kind of relations do these establish?  Following Ivan Illich, should we be rethinking our relations to develop tools and systems that treat us as human, perhaps even more human than our current system? Following Virilio, what will be their accident?  What are the good relations between our academic institutions, their people, and these new technologies?
Over the last 70 years, computational and networked media have become deeply integrated with higher education and have slowly adopted and integrated various technologies. The newest generation of technologies engaging higher education centers around what is popularly called artificial intelligence, otherwise known as machine learning.  Machine learning creates models that, in part self-design solutions that may include interaction, prediction, and other simulatable aspects.  This panel invites papers that engage with questions of academic automation, machine un/learning, and artificial non/intelligence in the academic context.  It seeks critical papers that examine questions around  automatic grading, artificial teaching assistants, robotic instructors, other academic technologies, and the transformation of the student and professor roles concerning these technologies.  
This panel also seeks papers that engage these technologies in other academic roles, such as research or service as work.  How are these technologies mediating different academic functions? Who benefits from these technologies? And who is privileged by them?
We have to consider the roles of craft, artistry, and humanity in those roles.  Is there an argument to be made for automation in the academy? Is there an argument to be made for AI/Machine learning in the academy?  What kind of relations do these establish?  Following Ivan Illich, should we be rethinking our relations to develop tools and systems that treat us as human, perhaps even more human than our current system? Following Virilio, what will be their accident?  What are the good relations between our academic institutions, their people, and these new technologies?
Over the last 70 years, computational and networked media have become deeply integrated with higher education and have slowly adopted and integrated various technologies. The newest generation of technologies engaging higher education centers around what is popularly called artificial intelligence, otherwise known as machine learning.  Machine learning creates models that, in part self-design solutions that may include interaction, prediction, and other simulatable aspects.  This panel invites papers that engage with questions of academic automation, machine un/learning, and artificial non/intelligence in the academic context.  It seeks critical papers that examine questions around  automatic grading, artificial teaching assistants, robotic instructors, other academic technologies, and the transformation of the student and professor roles concerning these technologies.  
This panel also seeks papers that engage these technologies in other academic roles, such as research or service as work.  How are these technologies mediating different academic functions? Who benefits from these technologies? And who is privileged by them?
We have to consider the roles of craft, artistry, and humanity in those roles.  Is there an argument to be made for automation in the academy? Is there an argument to be made for AI/Machine learning in the academy?  What kind of relations do these establish?  Following Ivan Illich, should we be rethinking our relations to develop tools and systems that treat us as human, perhaps even more human than our current system? Following Virilio, what will be their accident?  What are the good relations between our academic institutions, their people, and these new technologies?
Over the last 70 years, computational and networked media have become deeply integrated with higher education and have slowly adopted and integrated various technologies. The newest generation of technologies engaging higher education centers around what is popularly called artificial intelligence, otherwise known as machine learning.  Machine learning creates models that, in part self-design solutions that may include interaction, prediction, and other simulatable aspects.  This panel invites papers that engage with questions of academic automation, machine un/learning, and artificial non/intelligence in the academic context.  It seeks critical papers that examine questions around  automatic grading, artificial teaching assistants, robotic instructors, other academic technologies, and the transformation of the student and professor roles concerning these technologies.  
This panel also seeks papers that engage these technologies in other academic roles, such as research or service as work.  How are these technologies mediating different academic functions? Who benefits from these technologies? And who is privileged by them?
We have to consider the roles of craft, artistry, and humanity in those roles.  Is there an argument to be made for automation in the academy? Is there an argument to be made for AI/Machine learning in the academy?  What kind of relations do these establish?  Following Ivan Illich, should we be rethinking our relations to develop tools and systems that treat us as human, perhaps even more human than our current system? Following Virilio, what will be their accident?  What are the good relations between our academic institutions, their people, and these new technologies?
Over the last 70 years, computational and networked media have become deeply integrated with higher education and have slowly adopted and integrated various technologies. The newest generation of technologies engaging higher education centers around what is popularly called artificial intelligence, otherwise known as machine learning.  Machine learning creates models that, in part self-design solutions that may include interaction, prediction, and other simulatable aspects.  This panel invites papers that engage with questions of academic automation, machine un/learning, and artificial non/intelligence in the academic context.  It seeks critical papers that examine questions around  automatic grading, artificial teaching assistants, robotic instructors, other academic technologies, and the transformation of the student and professor roles concerning these technologies.  
This panel also seeks papers that engage these technologies in other academic roles, such as research or service as work.  How are these technologies mediating different academic functions? Who benefits from these technologies? And who is privileged by them?
We have to consider the roles of craft, artistry, and humanity in those roles.  Is there an argument to be made for automation in the academy? Is there an argument to be made for AI/Machine learning in the academy?  What kind of relations do these establish?  Following Ivan Illich, should we be rethinking our relations to develop tools and systems that treat us as human, perhaps even more human than our current system? Following Virilio, what will be their accident?  What are the good relations between our academic institutions, their people, and these new technologies?
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
“Objects, processes, or events that in some ways disclose, generate, or intensify the condition of being enveloped by the elemental force of atmospheres,” Derek McCormack (2018) proposes, are “atmospheric things.” The balloon, for instance, might be construed as a device that not only explicates but also draws force from its immersion in air. We invite papers that contend with aerotechnologies, understood as infrastructures, devices, knowledge systems, and particles that make air as much a technological fact as it is a natural one. What does it mean to study air as elemental technology? How is air — as an element — constitutive, pervasive, and facilitative of emergent kinds of social experiences and relations? How are wind (Howe 2019, Boyer 2019), climate engineering (Furuhata 2019), teargas (Nieuwenhuis 2016), industrial gases (Banken and Stokes 2015), terrariums (Darby 2007), breathing (Braun 2014; Mbembe 2020), as well as other airy matters technologically mediated, rendered, and configured? How does air come to be known or contested through processes of racial, (settler) colonial, and capitalist formations (Flikke 2018, Simmons 2017)? If techne denotes the practices of making, we propose that aerotechnologies relate and relay connections between people, non-human actors, epochs, and places, evoking the conference theme that asks what are good (airy) relations? In addition to treating air as technological, we are also interested in papers that explore air as an elemental medium that link different scales of political and social action (Peters 2015, Horn 2018, Choy 2011), especially from perspectives tethered in the global South.
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
In recent years, Science and Technology studies have paid increasing attention to ageing and elderly care. At the cross-road with critical age studies, new areas and theoretical developments such as socio-gerontechnology or material gerontology are making important contributions. Informed by material-semiotics, post-humanism, and affect theory these developments are shedding light on the critical role of materiality and other-than-human beings in the constitution of old age as a social construct and bio-political device. They show how notions of ageing well (such as active ageing or successful ageing) are materialised in technological and biomedical innovations and how these configure modes of doing age in older’s people daily-life. Drawing on the more-than-human turn in STS and age studies, this panel is an invitation to extend the reach of these developments beyond their traditional focus on innovative digital and biomedical “solutions” for the ageing society. We invite papers that consider more-than-human entanglements with animal, plants, buildings, landscapes, etc. in critical studies of age and elderly care. We also look for contributions that delve into the politics of relations in these more-than-human entanglements in later life. The panel is an invitation to consider questions such as: How elderly care is reconfigured when care is not considered from anthropocentric visions? What does ageing and old age become when ageing is seen as a stage of becoming-with other-than-humans? How do other-than-human ageing and elderly care matter in these entanglements? What notions of ageing well and good elderly care emerge as a result of this?
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
The Exquisite Corpse (Le Cadavre exquis, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-explaining-exquisite-corpse-surrealist-drawing-game-die) is a collaborative game of imperfect assemblage: each participant adds to a composition in sequence, not knowing or knowing little of what was added beforehand. In this panel, we deploy the “exquisite corpse” as a method and provocation for survival, collaboration, and playful relations during these uncertain times, investing not in fixed outcomes but emergent relationships and knowledges.
We invite anyone interested in an imaginative and experimental exercise, and in forging a liminal space of collaboration and solidarity, to join us in collectively creating an exquisite corpse. Individual submissions should not be traditional conference presentations but stories, poems, visualizations, or  other narrative forms that center around research spaces unsettled by disturbances, quakes, fires, waters, or human catastrophe; timelines, career trajectories, research plans, budgets or any project plan disrupted in the face of trauma and uncertainty; relationships and bodies broken, brittle, and precarious. The only condition is that you leave your contribution open to articulation, re-pair, and imaginative attachments that can ferment unsuspected forms of sense-making, relationship-building, knowledge-production, and negotiation. Collectively, we will then assemble and draw connections that create multiple possibilities and outcomes for a more careful academic practice. Through the configuration of this exquisite corpse, we will explore the folds, redirections, and emergent properties that can generate good relations within the university and beyond.
We welcome fellow scholars from all disciplines, fields, and places of research to help us create and imagine re-paired relations within and outside of the university.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This open panel stream proposes up to three panels exploring themes in the Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies and welcoming scholars, artists, curators, and others to contribute to the conversation. The first panel will investigate Boundaries and Borders in Art and Science; the second will explore Multidisciplinary
Histories in this multifaceted field which has many claims on the subject of history, and the third will consider Infrastructure and Institutions of Art and Science. Attendant questions relevant across
the panels include: what does it mean to bring art and science
together and what is produced? What can STS scholars learn from
observing art and science in relationship to one another? How are
curation and facilitation working in tension and in tandem with the
observation and participation of STS scholars in these areas?
STS researchers and practitioners who have worked with art to discuss the relationship between art and science and the relationship between this type of work and STS itself are sought as panelists. We welcome submissions that delve into the ways that the categories of art and science are constructed and how the boundaries and borders between
these two areas are maintained and breached through histories, institutions, and disciplinary norms and breaches. Panel subjects might include the formation of scientific and artistic communities inside of and outside of universities and disciplinary funding streams, collaborative work in art and science for policy influence, artists
and analysts reflecting on their work together, and STS scholars considering what their fields can learn from the arts.
This panel aims to generate comparative insights into the ways in which AI technologies are debated, developed, applied and governed around the world. Developments in AI, machine learning, and big data are transforming societies, the relationships of humans to each other, and interactions with the environment. Simultaneously, the deployment of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems takes place in a context of global inequalities and competition, as well as well differences in cultural values, political systems and scientific capacities. 
In this panel we welcome contributions that explore aspects of the following questions:
(i) What role do global inequalities and differences play in terms of how AI systems are developed, used and discussed in different global contexts?
(ii) Which region-specific and shared global challenges emerge with regard to the governance of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems?
(iii) What are the effects of AI technologies on issues related to equality, diversity, justice  and inclusion/exclusion around the world?
(iv) What are the implications of the global adoption and use of AI systems for STS, and the ways in which relations between humans, data, intelligent machines and the (social and natural) environment are conceptualised and governed?
The panel invites conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions from across the world, with a particular interest in perspectives from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America as we well Oceania. Contributions that explore transnational developments or the effects of the international transfer of AI technologies from Europe and Northern America are also welcome.
This panel aims to generate comparative insights into the ways in which AI technologies are debated, developed, applied and governed around the world. Developments in AI, machine learning, and big data are transforming societies, the relationships of humans to each other, and interactions with the environment. Simultaneously, the deployment of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems takes place in a context of global inequalities and competition, as well as well differences in cultural values, political systems and scientific capacities. 
In this panel we welcome contributions that explore aspects of the following questions:
(i) What role do global inequalities and differences play in terms of how AI systems are developed, used and discussed in different global contexts?
(ii) Which region-specific and shared global challenges emerge with regard to the governance of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems?
(iii) What are the effects of AI technologies on issues related to equality, diversity, justice  and inclusion/exclusion around the world?
(iv) What are the implications of the global adoption and use of AI systems for STS, and the ways in which relations between humans, data, intelligent machines and the (social and natural) environment are conceptualised and governed?
The panel invites conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions from across the world, with a particular interest in perspectives from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America as we well Oceania. Contributions that explore transnational developments or the effects of the international transfer of AI technologies from Europe and Northern America are also welcome.
This panel aims to generate comparative insights into the ways in which AI technologies are debated, developed, applied and governed around the world. Developments in AI, machine learning, and big data are transforming societies, the relationships of humans to each other, and interactions with the environment. Simultaneously, the deployment of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems takes place in a context of global inequalities and competition, as well as well differences in cultural values, political systems and scientific capacities. 
In this panel we welcome contributions that explore aspects of the following questions:
(i) What role do global inequalities and differences play in terms of how AI systems are developed, used and discussed in different global contexts?
(ii) Which region-specific and shared global challenges emerge with regard to the governance of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems?
(iii) What are the effects of AI technologies on issues related to equality, diversity, justice  and inclusion/exclusion around the world?
(iv) What are the implications of the global adoption and use of AI systems for STS, and the ways in which relations between humans, data, intelligent machines and the (social and natural) environment are conceptualised and governed?
The panel invites conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions from across the world, with a particular interest in perspectives from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America as we well Oceania. Contributions that explore transnational developments or the effects of the international transfer of AI technologies from Europe and Northern America are also welcome.
This panel aims to generate comparative insights into the ways in which AI technologies are debated, developed, applied and governed around the world. Developments in AI, machine learning, and big data are transforming societies, the relationships of humans to each other, and interactions with the environment. Simultaneously, the deployment of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems takes place in a context of global inequalities and competition, as well as well differences in cultural values, political systems and scientific capacities. 
In this panel we welcome contributions that explore aspects of the following questions:
(i) What role do global inequalities and differences play in terms of how AI systems are developed, used and discussed in different global contexts?
(ii) Which region-specific and shared global challenges emerge with regard to the governance of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems?
(iii) What are the effects of AI technologies on issues related to equality, diversity, justice  and inclusion/exclusion around the world?
(iv) What are the implications of the global adoption and use of AI systems for STS, and the ways in which relations between humans, data, intelligent machines and the (social and natural) environment are conceptualised and governed?
The panel invites conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions from across the world, with a particular interest in perspectives from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America as we well Oceania. Contributions that explore transnational developments or the effects of the international transfer of AI technologies from Europe and Northern America are also welcome.
This panel aims to generate comparative insights into the ways in which AI technologies are debated, developed, applied and governed around the world. Developments in AI, machine learning, and big data are transforming societies, the relationships of humans to each other, and interactions with the environment. Simultaneously, the deployment of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems takes place in a context of global inequalities and competition, as well as well differences in cultural values, political systems and scientific capacities. 
In this panel we welcome contributions that explore aspects of the following questions:
(i) What role do global inequalities and differences play in terms of how AI systems are developed, used and discussed in different global contexts?
(ii) Which region-specific and shared global challenges emerge with regard to the governance of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems?
(iii) What are the effects of AI technologies on issues related to equality, diversity, justice  and inclusion/exclusion around the world?
(iv) What are the implications of the global adoption and use of AI systems for STS, and the ways in which relations between humans, data, intelligent machines and the (social and natural) environment are conceptualised and governed?
The panel invites conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions from across the world, with a particular interest in perspectives from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America as we well Oceania. Contributions that explore transnational developments or the effects of the international transfer of AI technologies from Europe and Northern America are also welcome.
This panel aims to generate comparative insights into the ways in which AI technologies are debated, developed, applied and governed around the world. Developments in AI, machine learning, and big data are transforming societies, the relationships of humans to each other, and interactions with the environment. Simultaneously, the deployment of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems takes place in a context of global inequalities and competition, as well as well differences in cultural values, political systems and scientific capacities. 
In this panel we welcome contributions that explore aspects of the following questions:
(i) What role do global inequalities and differences play in terms of how AI systems are developed, used and discussed in different global contexts?
(ii) Which region-specific and shared global challenges emerge with regard to the governance of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems?
(iii) What are the effects of AI technologies on issues related to equality, diversity, justice  and inclusion/exclusion around the world?
(iv) What are the implications of the global adoption and use of AI systems for STS, and the ways in which relations between humans, data, intelligent machines and the (social and natural) environment are conceptualised and governed?
The panel invites conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions from across the world, with a particular interest in perspectives from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America as we well Oceania. Contributions that explore transnational developments or the effects of the international transfer of AI technologies from Europe and Northern America are also welcome.
This panel aims to generate comparative insights into the ways in which AI technologies are debated, developed, applied and governed around the world. Developments in AI, machine learning, and big data are transforming societies, the relationships of humans to each other, and interactions with the environment. Simultaneously, the deployment of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems takes place in a context of global inequalities and competition, as well as well differences in cultural values, political systems and scientific capacities. 
In this panel we welcome contributions that explore aspects of the following questions:
(i) What role do global inequalities and differences play in terms of how AI systems are developed, used and discussed in different global contexts?
(ii) Which region-specific and shared global challenges emerge with regard to the governance of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems?
(iii) What are the effects of AI technologies on issues related to equality, diversity, justice  and inclusion/exclusion around the world?
(iv) What are the implications of the global adoption and use of AI systems for STS, and the ways in which relations between humans, data, intelligent machines and the (social and natural) environment are conceptualised and governed?
The panel invites conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions from across the world, with a particular interest in perspectives from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America as we well Oceania. Contributions that explore transnational developments or the effects of the international transfer of AI technologies from Europe and Northern America are also welcome.
This panel aims to generate comparative insights into the ways in which AI technologies are debated, developed, applied and governed around the world. Developments in AI, machine learning, and big data are transforming societies, the relationships of humans to each other, and interactions with the environment. Simultaneously, the deployment of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems takes place in a context of global inequalities and competition, as well as well differences in cultural values, political systems and scientific capacities. 
In this panel we welcome contributions that explore aspects of the following questions:
(i) What role do global inequalities and differences play in terms of how AI systems are developed, used and discussed in different global contexts?
(ii) Which region-specific and shared global challenges emerge with regard to the governance of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems?
(iii) What are the effects of AI technologies on issues related to equality, diversity, justice  and inclusion/exclusion around the world?
(iv) What are the implications of the global adoption and use of AI systems for STS, and the ways in which relations between humans, data, intelligent machines and the (social and natural) environment are conceptualised and governed?
The panel invites conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions from across the world, with a particular interest in perspectives from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America as we well Oceania. Contributions that explore transnational developments or the effects of the international transfer of AI technologies from Europe and Northern America are also welcome.
This panel aims to generate comparative insights into the ways in which AI technologies are debated, developed, applied and governed around the world. Developments in AI, machine learning, and big data are transforming societies, the relationships of humans to each other, and interactions with the environment. Simultaneously, the deployment of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems takes place in a context of global inequalities and competition, as well as well differences in cultural values, political systems and scientific capacities. 
In this panel we welcome contributions that explore aspects of the following questions:
(i) What role do global inequalities and differences play in terms of how AI systems are developed, used and discussed in different global contexts?
(ii) Which region-specific and shared global challenges emerge with regard to the governance of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems?
(iii) What are the effects of AI technologies on issues related to equality, diversity, justice  and inclusion/exclusion around the world?
(iv) What are the implications of the global adoption and use of AI systems for STS, and the ways in which relations between humans, data, intelligent machines and the (social and natural) environment are conceptualised and governed?
The panel invites conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions from across the world, with a particular interest in perspectives from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America as we well Oceania. Contributions that explore transnational developments or the effects of the international transfer of AI technologies from Europe and Northern America are also welcome.
This panel aims to generate comparative insights into the ways in which AI technologies are debated, developed, applied and governed around the world. Developments in AI, machine learning, and big data are transforming societies, the relationships of humans to each other, and interactions with the environment. Simultaneously, the deployment of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems takes place in a context of global inequalities and competition, as well as well differences in cultural values, political systems and scientific capacities. 
In this panel we welcome contributions that explore aspects of the following questions:
(i) What role do global inequalities and differences play in terms of how AI systems are developed, used and discussed in different global contexts?
(ii) Which region-specific and shared global challenges emerge with regard to the governance of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems?
(iii) What are the effects of AI technologies on issues related to equality, diversity, justice  and inclusion/exclusion around the world?
(iv) What are the implications of the global adoption and use of AI systems for STS, and the ways in which relations between humans, data, intelligent machines and the (social and natural) environment are conceptualised and governed?
The panel invites conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions from across the world, with a particular interest in perspectives from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America as we well Oceania. Contributions that explore transnational developments or the effects of the international transfer of AI technologies from Europe and Northern America are also welcome.
This panel aims to generate comparative insights into the ways in which AI technologies are debated, developed, applied and governed around the world. Developments in AI, machine learning, and big data are transforming societies, the relationships of humans to each other, and interactions with the environment. Simultaneously, the deployment of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems takes place in a context of global inequalities and competition, as well as well differences in cultural values, political systems and scientific capacities. 
In this panel we welcome contributions that explore aspects of the following questions:
(i) What role do global inequalities and differences play in terms of how AI systems are developed, used and discussed in different global contexts?
(ii) Which region-specific and shared global challenges emerge with regard to the governance of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems?
(iii) What are the effects of AI technologies on issues related to equality, diversity, justice  and inclusion/exclusion around the world?
(iv) What are the implications of the global adoption and use of AI systems for STS, and the ways in which relations between humans, data, intelligent machines and the (social and natural) environment are conceptualised and governed?
The panel invites conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions from across the world, with a particular interest in perspectives from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America as we well Oceania. Contributions that explore transnational developments or the effects of the international transfer of AI technologies from Europe and Northern America are also welcome.
This panel aims to generate comparative insights into the ways in which AI technologies are debated, developed, applied and governed around the world. Developments in AI, machine learning, and big data are transforming societies, the relationships of humans to each other, and interactions with the environment. Simultaneously, the deployment of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems takes place in a context of global inequalities and competition, as well as well differences in cultural values, political systems and scientific capacities. 
In this panel we welcome contributions that explore aspects of the following questions:
(i) What role do global inequalities and differences play in terms of how AI systems are developed, used and discussed in different global contexts?
(ii) Which region-specific and shared global challenges emerge with regard to the governance of AI, AI-based robots and smart information systems?
(iii) What are the effects of AI technologies on issues related to equality, diversity, justice  and inclusion/exclusion around the world?
(iv) What are the implications of the global adoption and use of AI systems for STS, and the ways in which relations between humans, data, intelligent machines and the (social and natural) environment are conceptualised and governed?
The panel invites conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions from across the world, with a particular interest in perspectives from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America as we well Oceania. Contributions that explore transnational developments or the effects of the international transfer of AI technologies from Europe and Northern America are also welcome.
The dominant governance discussions imagined around autonomous systems and artificial intelligence are seen as flowing from autonomy: What happens when AI takes over our jobs? How should a self-driving car decide who to kill in the event of a crash? What are the existential risks of superintelligence? Tech billionaires like discussing these things precisely because they sidestep the real politics of AI.
STS suggests a very different set of questions that switch attention to the attachments of innovation rather than its autonomy: Given that AI will not be as independent as its proponents suggest, under what conditions could it benefit particular groups? How might the world need to change to accommodate robots? Who will pay for the infrastructure that supports AI? What is the role for public resistance and reconfiguring?
The dominant governance discussions imagined around autonomous systems and artificial intelligence are seen as flowing from autonomy: What happens when AI takes over our jobs? How should a self-driving car decide who to kill in the event of a crash? What are the existential risks of superintelligence? Tech billionaires like discussing these things precisely because they sidestep the real politics of AI.
STS suggests a very different set of questions that switch attention to the attachments of innovation rather than its autonomy: Given that AI will not be as independent as its proponents suggest, under what conditions could it benefit particular groups? How might the world need to change to accommodate robots? Who will pay for the infrastructure that supports AI? What is the role for public resistance and reconfiguring?
The dominant governance discussions imagined around autonomous systems and artificial intelligence are seen as flowing from autonomy: What happens when AI takes over our jobs? How should a self-driving car decide who to kill in the event of a crash? What are the existential risks of superintelligence? Tech billionaires like discussing these things precisely because they sidestep the real politics of AI.
STS suggests a very different set of questions that switch attention to the attachments of innovation rather than its autonomy: Given that AI will not be as independent as its proponents suggest, under what conditions could it benefit particular groups? How might the world need to change to accommodate robots? Who will pay for the infrastructure that supports AI? What is the role for public resistance and reconfiguring?
The dominant governance discussions imagined around autonomous systems and artificial intelligence are seen as flowing from autonomy: What happens when AI takes over our jobs? How should a self-driving car decide who to kill in the event of a crash? What are the existential risks of superintelligence? Tech billionaires like discussing these things precisely because they sidestep the real politics of AI.
STS suggests a very different set of questions that switch attention to the attachments of innovation rather than its autonomy: Given that AI will not be as independent as its proponents suggest, under what conditions could it benefit particular groups? How might the world need to change to accommodate robots? Who will pay for the infrastructure that supports AI? What is the role for public resistance and reconfiguring?
The dominant governance discussions imagined around autonomous systems and artificial intelligence are seen as flowing from autonomy: What happens when AI takes over our jobs? How should a self-driving car decide who to kill in the event of a crash? What are the existential risks of superintelligence? Tech billionaires like discussing these things precisely because they sidestep the real politics of AI.
STS suggests a very different set of questions that switch attention to the attachments of innovation rather than its autonomy: Given that AI will not be as independent as its proponents suggest, under what conditions could it benefit particular groups? How might the world need to change to accommodate robots? Who will pay for the infrastructure that supports AI? What is the role for public resistance and reconfiguring?
The dominant governance discussions imagined around autonomous systems and artificial intelligence are seen as flowing from autonomy: What happens when AI takes over our jobs? How should a self-driving car decide who to kill in the event of a crash? What are the existential risks of superintelligence? Tech billionaires like discussing these things precisely because they sidestep the real politics of AI.
STS suggests a very different set of questions that switch attention to the attachments of innovation rather than its autonomy: Given that AI will not be as independent as its proponents suggest, under what conditions could it benefit particular groups? How might the world need to change to accommodate robots? Who will pay for the infrastructure that supports AI? What is the role for public resistance and reconfiguring?
The dominant governance discussions imagined around autonomous systems and artificial intelligence are seen as flowing from autonomy: What happens when AI takes over our jobs? How should a self-driving car decide who to kill in the event of a crash? What are the existential risks of superintelligence? Tech billionaires like discussing these things precisely because they sidestep the real politics of AI.
STS suggests a very different set of questions that switch attention to the attachments of innovation rather than its autonomy: Given that AI will not be as independent as its proponents suggest, under what conditions could it benefit particular groups? How might the world need to change to accommodate robots? Who will pay for the infrastructure that supports AI? What is the role for public resistance and reconfiguring?
The dominant governance discussions imagined around autonomous systems and artificial intelligence are seen as flowing from autonomy: What happens when AI takes over our jobs? How should a self-driving car decide who to kill in the event of a crash? What are the existential risks of superintelligence? Tech billionaires like discussing these things precisely because they sidestep the real politics of AI.
STS suggests a very different set of questions that switch attention to the attachments of innovation rather than its autonomy: Given that AI will not be as independent as its proponents suggest, under what conditions could it benefit particular groups? How might the world need to change to accommodate robots? Who will pay for the infrastructure that supports AI? What is the role for public resistance and reconfiguring?
The dominant governance discussions imagined around autonomous systems and artificial intelligence are seen as flowing from autonomy: What happens when AI takes over our jobs? How should a self-driving car decide who to kill in the event of a crash? What are the existential risks of superintelligence? Tech billionaires like discussing these things precisely because they sidestep the real politics of AI.
STS suggests a very different set of questions that switch attention to the attachments of innovation rather than its autonomy: Given that AI will not be as independent as its proponents suggest, under what conditions could it benefit particular groups? How might the world need to change to accommodate robots? Who will pay for the infrastructure that supports AI? What is the role for public resistance and reconfiguring?
The dominant governance discussions imagined around autonomous systems and artificial intelligence are seen as flowing from autonomy: What happens when AI takes over our jobs? How should a self-driving car decide who to kill in the event of a crash? What are the existential risks of superintelligence? Tech billionaires like discussing these things precisely because they sidestep the real politics of AI.
STS suggests a very different set of questions that switch attention to the attachments of innovation rather than its autonomy: Given that AI will not be as independent as its proponents suggest, under what conditions could it benefit particular groups? How might the world need to change to accommodate robots? Who will pay for the infrastructure that supports AI? What is the role for public resistance and reconfiguring?
The dominant governance discussions imagined around autonomous systems and artificial intelligence are seen as flowing from autonomy: What happens when AI takes over our jobs? How should a self-driving car decide who to kill in the event of a crash? What are the existential risks of superintelligence? Tech billionaires like discussing these things precisely because they sidestep the real politics of AI.
STS suggests a very different set of questions that switch attention to the attachments of innovation rather than its autonomy: Given that AI will not be as independent as its proponents suggest, under what conditions could it benefit particular groups? How might the world need to change to accommodate robots? Who will pay for the infrastructure that supports AI? What is the role for public resistance and reconfiguring?
The dominant governance discussions imagined around autonomous systems and artificial intelligence are seen as flowing from autonomy: What happens when AI takes over our jobs? How should a self-driving car decide who to kill in the event of a crash? What are the existential risks of superintelligence? Tech billionaires like discussing these things precisely because they sidestep the real politics of AI.
STS suggests a very different set of questions that switch attention to the attachments of innovation rather than its autonomy: Given that AI will not be as independent as its proponents suggest, under what conditions could it benefit particular groups? How might the world need to change to accommodate robots? Who will pay for the infrastructure that supports AI? What is the role for public resistance and reconfiguring?
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical STS scholars have exposed “lab life” as a key arena of agentive relations and as sites of more than technical assemblages (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Traweek 1998). Social scientists have also found the form of “a lab” generative for organizing collaborations and essential to gaining institutional recognition and funding. We seek to move beyond the important work of first generation lab studies that demonstrated the political nature of (bench and social) science to place the studying of labs alongside the establishment of qualitative STS labs– ones that draw on traditional laboratory models yet incorporate alternative frameworks of inclusion and non-extractive epistemologies. Our focus is this dual nature of labs as systems of relations. 
Extending Roy’s (2018) incitement for feminist laboratory methods into the work of qualitative labs, we ask two central questions: what makes a qualitative lab a lab, and what are its methods of good relations? Following Liboiron et al. (2017), how do labs relate to, or materialize in, particular methodologies, ethnographic productions and collaborations?
Submissions might address the above through consideration of:
*Alternatives to Latourian-style laboratory studies
*Ethics and praxis of collaborative networks among and between labs, the public and private sectors
*Methodological strategies for analyzing lab collaborations and participating in them
*The role of labs as workplaces and as places of often precarious employment
*Models for building labs, their intersection with other kinds of institutional relations, and especially for those outside R1 institutions,
*The heightened stakes of these conditions in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Critical feminist STS has constructively challenged the cisheteronormativity and white supremacy embedded in an array of sciences, from animal behavior to toxicology to urban ecology (Visperas, Brown, and Sexton 2016; Cipolla, Gupta, and Rubin 2017; Hoover 2017). This panel builds from these critiques to highlight emerging shifts—despite ongoing obstacles—within contemporary scientific methods and practices, focusing on field sites and laboratory spaces. We recognize that even those practitioners committed to queering and decolonizing scientific knowledge production face entrenched systems of hierarchy and linearity. And yet, we also sense fantastic(al) potential. For instance, what pathways to environmental justice do queer, Black feminist, and Indigenous studies perspectives enable us to see, feel, and traverse? Or, focusing on the embodied experience of doing work in the field/lab in a specific body, what dangers and risks does this work entail? What would making space for BIPOC, queer, and trans scientists to do this work make possible, in terms of scientific outcomes, community engagement, and environmental justice action? We are especially interested in how queer and trans perspectives on cisheteronormativity might intersect with Indigenous studies, Black feminist, and political ecology analyses of private property and public lands. For example, how can field science work within tribal protocols to disrupt settler science’s longstanding practice of contributing to dispossession (through creation of conservation areas and parks, advancement of forestry and agriculture, river damming, etc.)? What critical modes of attention does Black feminist biopolitics bring to the study of toxins and/or ecological “purity,” across both urban and rural landscapes?
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
Social scientific scholarship on agriculture often focuses on food systems, but this panel addresses dimensions of agricultural production and practice beyond food itself. As pig bodies yield both pork and pharmaceutical materials, corn both animal feed and ethanol, and cannabis both medicine and building materials, how does the practice, governance, and commercialization of agriculture beyond food generate opportunities or challenges for emancipatory change and good relations? Well-studied food system concerns like soil and environmental degradation, violent labor practices, and the plantation logics of industrialism, might be augmented by studies that approach agriculture from non-food perspectives; submissions could address the complexities of agricultural production of medicines/pharmaceuticals, textiles, lumber, or other goods. How and in what ways do these forms of agricultural production generate specific relations with environments, social worlds, scales, industries, or practices of extraction? How can critical or ethnographic studies of agriculture shed light on linked or dependent industries such as pharma or construction? How is racial capitalism working in agriculture beyond and adjacent to food? What are the political potentials or projects surfacing in these forms of agricultural production (for example, climate and and environmental justice), and with what stakes, tactics, demands, or effects?
We invite papers that address a broad range of topics and places. They might present ethnographic work, notes from the field, or historical examinations of specific crops, farms, or industries. We anticipate convening a standard 5- or 6-person panel to meet digitally, though could expand depending on submission numbers.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
We propose a post-solutionist reflection on what is Responsible AI, to discuss interdisciplinary perspectives that contribute to making AI systems more fair, transparent, and inclusive. Solutionism is “recasting all complex social situations either as neat problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized if only the right algorithms are in place!” (Morozov 2013)
Ethical problems in AI/ML have been exposed through numerous and influential publications (Buolamwini & Gebru 2018, Challen & al 2019, Parikh & al 2019, Yapo & Weiss 2018). How can we move from a view of ethics and responsibility narrowly focused on technical definitions of bias, discrimination, and fairness in AI systems to one which considers interconnecting issues of cognitive bias, social inequality, white supremacy, intersectionality, geopolitical and economic divides?
A robust consideration of ethics and responsibility requires that we interrogate how technologies are interwoven with our social structures, histories, and moral imaginations (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019). We must go beyond tech solutionism to frame problems without automatically assuming AI/ML is the best or inevitable course of action, to fully explore fine-grain signals and our complete range of options, which can include “do nothing.”
Topics to be addressed include power and ubiquity of automated systems in daily life, over-trust in technical solutions, and whether our current production methodologies and research approaches support or hinder just and equitable AI systems.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Biometric practices have moved around the world through colonial and postcolonial contexts, transnational exchange, and private sector developments. They have become central to a variety of public and private infrastructures. Often, biometric technologies and data are not built from scratch, rather they are reformulated and repurposed to fit new times, places, and contexts. Automated face and fingerprint identification on smartphones, and biometric data in ID cards, are underwritten by similar methods of body measurement developed by 19th and 20th century eugenics, anthropology, statistics, and criminology researchers. States have appropriated biometric databases as digital platforms, which often serve as foundations upon which other infrastructures are organized. Biometric systems have been used, and reused, for purposes ranging from the delivery of government services to policing, from tracking refugees to COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
This open track invites submissions that address the movement of biometric practices, and their social consequences. Panelists will explore not only how biometric techniques constitute emerging forms of identity governance, but also how they move across time and place, reorganize existing practices, and produce new kinds of infrastructures. Even in new contexts, biometric systems carry the biases and intentions of prior ones. These systems can fail, and present asymmetrical benefits and harms that reinforce inequalities related to race, gender, class, age, and disability. These systems also shape the lived experiences of citizenship, migration, surveillance, and access to services. This panel welcomes papers that leverage STS concepts and methods to probe the trajectories, implementations, and implications of biometrics on the move.
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Machines are central artifacts in the study of science and technology. As both the products and producers of ways of being, machines play an important role in the making and unmaking of lifeworlds. The borderlands needs to be thought of as a machine and a site of machines. The development of converging technologies that make computing power possible is often described in frontier language. Silicon Valley and its network of engineers, technicians, and companies take on the roles of pioneers demarcating new territory for others to inhabit. This territory is positioned as a zone of encounters between various forces, a space from where human creativity takes flight and that is slowly populated by natives who produce new ways of thinking and of being. The language of frontiers, pioneers, and natives in technoscience brings into consideration imperial formations, that is practices, concepts, and bodies that produce ambiguous rules and spaces of inclusion/exclusion. 
This panel brings together concepts and ways of tracing relations from the fields of Feminist STS, Latina/o Studies, and Critical Ethnic Studies to think about technoscience and the borderlands in the making of unequal and uncertain worlds. We invite papers from a range of contexts about:
– Comparative racial formations & technical infrastructures
– Black, Indigenous, and People of Color as critical actors in technoscience
– Technoscience in the/as a borderlands
– Concepts emerging from “border thinkers” as ways to bridge social and technical domains
– Borderlands theory as a way to rethink STS
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Knowledge production in interaction among different actors –be it specific contributions, sustained collaborations or co-productions- is becoming an integral part of academic practices. These trends are reflected in a rich literature within STS studies and other fields of knowledge such as feminist epistemologies seeking to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, what actors participate, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put in practice and what results emerge.
The systematic recognition of these processes, on the basis of normative concepts, favors the construction of analytical tools as well as conceptual and methodological enrichment. In turn, they reveal the asymmetrical power dynamics, shaping interaction processes. There lies our interest to investigate the relationships established between different actors, the type of problems they address and the way in which different knowledge and practices – experiential and scientific – are recognized and integrated. This panel seeks to analyze the transformations in practices and methods -in different regions of the world- that configure a new heuristic.
How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction?
How are the relationships between the various actors and knowledge reconfigured? What are the places of non-academic actors in the processes of knowledge production? How do these processes advance in the generation of symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge?
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
Science is an increasingly global activity. Due to the globalization of the scientific labor market, many countries are implementing policies promoting scientific collaboration and mobility as a means to “internationalize” their scientific system. It has been argued that international and disciplinary collaboration fosters high-quality knowledge production and is necessary to solve complex scientific problems. Collaboration for mutual benefit has also gained increasing acceptance, with “partner” selection becoming a strategic priority to enhance one’s own production. Collaborative partnerships have been shown to be a product of self-organizing networks, in which co-authorships are determined through preferential attachment to high impact and highly visible authors. Collaboration is also influenced by socio-political factors, such as relative size; geographical, historical, linguistic, and thematic proximity; and other socio-economic characteristics.
Intimately related with collaboration is the phenomenon of mobility. Mobility has been advocated as key to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of research and nations that welcome international researchers and encourage cross-border collaboration tend to produce papers with higher scientific impact. Most analyses focus on the economic and development impact caused by mobility, while a limited few have utilized bibliometric approaches to study scientific mobility at a large-scale and differences between scientific networks created through collaboration and mobility.
We look for studies identifying the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration patterns, and to determine the relative positions and influence of countries in both processes for improving our understanding of the relationship between scientific mobility and collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities.
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.