STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
In their edited volume Modes of Uncertainty (2015), Paul Rabinow and Limor Samimian-Darash (2015) propose that risk analysis has become “inadequate in the face of many contemporary problems” and that “uncertainty” is the new central problem in contemporary anthropological thought and practice. In these pandemic times, also marked by climate hazards, environmental destruction, dispossessions, political collapse, uncertainties surround us and burden us with ever greater force. 
For this panel, we invite contributions that reflect on the changing conditions and principles of scientific knowledge practices that hold on to values of objectivity, probability, reproducibility, standardization, replicability, and mass production. We aim to work through a set of questions that transform this apparent paradox: futures are scripted as uncertain, but at the same time, political and economic strategies and scientific formations remain set on replicable methodologies and mass productions. We ask ourselves: What if the product, the process, the tool, the method, the consumer good, or the design to be replicated is not yet complete, permanent, and accomplished? What if it is uncertain? How can one replicate methods, tools, objects that have an unfinished and uncertain future? How can we make and maintain a production line of replicability over time, with inherent failures, with shifts and turns? 
We aim for contributions that address the paradox of uncertain, underdetermined futures and standardized, overdetermined knowledge practices. We invite contributions from a range of fields whether concerned with health care practices, urban development, biomedicine, policing and security, infrastructure and network practices, activist, or care work.
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Risk has always been environmental. Its origins are in maritime insurance, providing a bulwark against potential losses from travel through stormy seas. Today, statistics and probability mediate our definitions of environmental extremes, abnormal events, and the thresholds at which they occur for phenomena such as global warming and its resultant impacts. If, as Ulrich Beck argued, we are living in a risk society, then in the era of the Anthropocene, this entails an acute awareness of environmental risks.
Media are privileged tools through which to represent and understand environmental risk, including discourses of peak oil, carbon budgets, and viral projects like the climate clock in New York City. From scenario planning to speculative countdowns, mediations of risk “make predictable and manage the production of affects like anxiety, fear, and even shock” (Neves 2020, 349). Confronting a moment of radical environmental uncertainty, this panel asks, how do measurements, models and other media shape and control the material risks associated with environmental change? How might we conceptualize the relationship between environmental risk, uncertainty, probability theory, and its history?”
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of a risk society in creating environmental crises, as the depletion economies built around speculative capital produce both social inequalities and environmental precarity. We encourage prospective panelists to consider issues of environmental and social justice: what constitutes “good relations” when it comes to living with environmental risk? What kind of role can STS play in providing us with just, affirmative, and decolonial visions for environmental citizenship?
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
Hormonal bodies have always been technologies of socio-technical relations. From the practices of spatial segregation due to menstruation (Spain, 1993) to the physical effects of ovulation and bleeding, to the varied practice of tracking of menstruation and ovulation (Delaney, Lupton, Toth, 1988, p. 274), scholars in feminist technoscience have documented menstruation as propelling and troubling gendered social formations. 
Simultaneously, social, political, and technical designs of (bio)technologies have influenced and co-constructed the meanings and embodied experiences of menstruation. Entrepreneurs have introduced products and services designed to meet the perceived needs of menstruators and appeal to neoliberal notions of ‘health and wellbeing’ (e.g., period panties, organic tampon subscriptions). Pharmaceutical companies, chemical products, and medical practitioners have developed, marketed, and prescribed products which manage, alter and disrupt endocrine cycles, troubling natural conceptions of menstruation. Social technologies like Instagram and TikTok have provided menstrual activists spaces to destigmatize menses, work to end period poverty (being unable to afford products to manage menstrual bleeding), and challenge assumptions and discursive constructions about difference and menstruation (Hasson, 2016). 
Ruha Benjamin’s work on race after technology suggests interdependency is always happening. “Our lived realit[ies] and infrastructural designs connect us in seen and unseen ways” (2019, p. 194). This panel takes up the premise of interdependency in considering technologies of menstruation and their effects. As precariously situated critical scholars, we invite scholars committed to feminist studies of technoscience and embodiment to inclusively and generatively engage in questions of the co-shaping of knowledge about menstruation with us.
This panel invites papers that deepen understandings of the histories, cultures, and politics of cybernetics. Since the mid-twentieth century, cybernetics has exercised a profound influence on contemporary science, technology, and society. Its historical development and impacts have received significant recent attention, which has shown how cybernetics emerged to shape not only the technological infrastructures and politics of the present day, but also the intellectual, ethical, and trajectories of disciplines across the natural and social sciences and engineering. 
While the importance of cybernetics is widely recognized, the stories told about it are largely situated within post-World War II Euro-American contexts and focused on a recognized group of influential figures and institutions. In recent years, there has been a movement to move beyond these foundations the seek a better grasp of how cybernetics has travelled, translated, and diversified into many forms across disciplines, but also across countries. This panel will join this movement, inviting contributions that push beyond dominant framings of cybernetics in order to examine it in ways that are multiple, especially transnationally and transdisciplinarily. 
The panel invites scholars interested in thinking of cybernetics as multiple, diverse in its origins, forms, and effects, with the goal of beginning a collective discussion about the foundations and futures of cybernetics and information societies broadly. Papers may address: histories of cybernetics beyond Euro-American contexts; cybernetics’ interactions with other disciplines, including but not limited to economics, education, management, cognitive sciences, life sciences, ethics and philosophy; and cybernetics in popular culture.
This panel invites papers that deepen understandings of the histories, cultures, and politics of cybernetics. Since the mid-twentieth century, cybernetics has exercised a profound influence on contemporary science, technology, and society. Its historical development and impacts have received significant recent attention, which has shown how cybernetics emerged to shape not only the technological infrastructures and politics of the present day, but also the intellectual, ethical, and trajectories of disciplines across the natural and social sciences and engineering. 
While the importance of cybernetics is widely recognized, the stories told about it are largely situated within post-World War II Euro-American contexts and focused on a recognized group of influential figures and institutions. In recent years, there has been a movement to move beyond these foundations the seek a better grasp of how cybernetics has travelled, translated, and diversified into many forms across disciplines, but also across countries. This panel will join this movement, inviting contributions that push beyond dominant framings of cybernetics in order to examine it in ways that are multiple, especially transnationally and transdisciplinarily. 
The panel invites scholars interested in thinking of cybernetics as multiple, diverse in its origins, forms, and effects, with the goal of beginning a collective discussion about the foundations and futures of cybernetics and information societies broadly. Papers may address: histories of cybernetics beyond Euro-American contexts; cybernetics’ interactions with other disciplines, including but not limited to economics, education, management, cognitive sciences, life sciences, ethics and philosophy; and cybernetics in popular culture.
This panel invites papers that deepen understandings of the histories, cultures, and politics of cybernetics. Since the mid-twentieth century, cybernetics has exercised a profound influence on contemporary science, technology, and society. Its historical development and impacts have received significant recent attention, which has shown how cybernetics emerged to shape not only the technological infrastructures and politics of the present day, but also the intellectual, ethical, and trajectories of disciplines across the natural and social sciences and engineering. 
While the importance of cybernetics is widely recognized, the stories told about it are largely situated within post-World War II Euro-American contexts and focused on a recognized group of influential figures and institutions. In recent years, there has been a movement to move beyond these foundations the seek a better grasp of how cybernetics has travelled, translated, and diversified into many forms across disciplines, but also across countries. This panel will join this movement, inviting contributions that push beyond dominant framings of cybernetics in order to examine it in ways that are multiple, especially transnationally and transdisciplinarily. 
The panel invites scholars interested in thinking of cybernetics as multiple, diverse in its origins, forms, and effects, with the goal of beginning a collective discussion about the foundations and futures of cybernetics and information societies broadly. Papers may address: histories of cybernetics beyond Euro-American contexts; cybernetics’ interactions with other disciplines, including but not limited to economics, education, management, cognitive sciences, life sciences, ethics and philosophy; and cybernetics in popular culture.
This panel invites papers that deepen understandings of the histories, cultures, and politics of cybernetics. Since the mid-twentieth century, cybernetics has exercised a profound influence on contemporary science, technology, and society. Its historical development and impacts have received significant recent attention, which has shown how cybernetics emerged to shape not only the technological infrastructures and politics of the present day, but also the intellectual, ethical, and trajectories of disciplines across the natural and social sciences and engineering. 
While the importance of cybernetics is widely recognized, the stories told about it are largely situated within post-World War II Euro-American contexts and focused on a recognized group of influential figures and institutions. In recent years, there has been a movement to move beyond these foundations the seek a better grasp of how cybernetics has travelled, translated, and diversified into many forms across disciplines, but also across countries. This panel will join this movement, inviting contributions that push beyond dominant framings of cybernetics in order to examine it in ways that are multiple, especially transnationally and transdisciplinarily. 
The panel invites scholars interested in thinking of cybernetics as multiple, diverse in its origins, forms, and effects, with the goal of beginning a collective discussion about the foundations and futures of cybernetics and information societies broadly. Papers may address: histories of cybernetics beyond Euro-American contexts; cybernetics’ interactions with other disciplines, including but not limited to economics, education, management, cognitive sciences, life sciences, ethics and philosophy; and cybernetics in popular culture.
This panel invites papers that deepen understandings of the histories, cultures, and politics of cybernetics. Since the mid-twentieth century, cybernetics has exercised a profound influence on contemporary science, technology, and society. Its historical development and impacts have received significant recent attention, which has shown how cybernetics emerged to shape not only the technological infrastructures and politics of the present day, but also the intellectual, ethical, and trajectories of disciplines across the natural and social sciences and engineering. 
While the importance of cybernetics is widely recognized, the stories told about it are largely situated within post-World War II Euro-American contexts and focused on a recognized group of influential figures and institutions. In recent years, there has been a movement to move beyond these foundations the seek a better grasp of how cybernetics has travelled, translated, and diversified into many forms across disciplines, but also across countries. This panel will join this movement, inviting contributions that push beyond dominant framings of cybernetics in order to examine it in ways that are multiple, especially transnationally and transdisciplinarily. 
The panel invites scholars interested in thinking of cybernetics as multiple, diverse in its origins, forms, and effects, with the goal of beginning a collective discussion about the foundations and futures of cybernetics and information societies broadly. Papers may address: histories of cybernetics beyond Euro-American contexts; cybernetics’ interactions with other disciplines, including but not limited to economics, education, management, cognitive sciences, life sciences, ethics and philosophy; and cybernetics in popular culture.
This panel invites papers that deepen understandings of the histories, cultures, and politics of cybernetics. Since the mid-twentieth century, cybernetics has exercised a profound influence on contemporary science, technology, and society. Its historical development and impacts have received significant recent attention, which has shown how cybernetics emerged to shape not only the technological infrastructures and politics of the present day, but also the intellectual, ethical, and trajectories of disciplines across the natural and social sciences and engineering. 
While the importance of cybernetics is widely recognized, the stories told about it are largely situated within post-World War II Euro-American contexts and focused on a recognized group of influential figures and institutions. In recent years, there has been a movement to move beyond these foundations the seek a better grasp of how cybernetics has travelled, translated, and diversified into many forms across disciplines, but also across countries. This panel will join this movement, inviting contributions that push beyond dominant framings of cybernetics in order to examine it in ways that are multiple, especially transnationally and transdisciplinarily. 
The panel invites scholars interested in thinking of cybernetics as multiple, diverse in its origins, forms, and effects, with the goal of beginning a collective discussion about the foundations and futures of cybernetics and information societies broadly. Papers may address: histories of cybernetics beyond Euro-American contexts; cybernetics’ interactions with other disciplines, including but not limited to economics, education, management, cognitive sciences, life sciences, ethics and philosophy; and cybernetics in popular culture.
This panel invites papers that deepen understandings of the histories, cultures, and politics of cybernetics. Since the mid-twentieth century, cybernetics has exercised a profound influence on contemporary science, technology, and society. Its historical development and impacts have received significant recent attention, which has shown how cybernetics emerged to shape not only the technological infrastructures and politics of the present day, but also the intellectual, ethical, and trajectories of disciplines across the natural and social sciences and engineering. 
While the importance of cybernetics is widely recognized, the stories told about it are largely situated within post-World War II Euro-American contexts and focused on a recognized group of influential figures and institutions. In recent years, there has been a movement to move beyond these foundations the seek a better grasp of how cybernetics has travelled, translated, and diversified into many forms across disciplines, but also across countries. This panel will join this movement, inviting contributions that push beyond dominant framings of cybernetics in order to examine it in ways that are multiple, especially transnationally and transdisciplinarily. 
The panel invites scholars interested in thinking of cybernetics as multiple, diverse in its origins, forms, and effects, with the goal of beginning a collective discussion about the foundations and futures of cybernetics and information societies broadly. Papers may address: histories of cybernetics beyond Euro-American contexts; cybernetics’ interactions with other disciplines, including but not limited to economics, education, management, cognitive sciences, life sciences, ethics and philosophy; and cybernetics in popular culture.
This panel invites papers that deepen understandings of the histories, cultures, and politics of cybernetics. Since the mid-twentieth century, cybernetics has exercised a profound influence on contemporary science, technology, and society. Its historical development and impacts have received significant recent attention, which has shown how cybernetics emerged to shape not only the technological infrastructures and politics of the present day, but also the intellectual, ethical, and trajectories of disciplines across the natural and social sciences and engineering. 
While the importance of cybernetics is widely recognized, the stories told about it are largely situated within post-World War II Euro-American contexts and focused on a recognized group of influential figures and institutions. In recent years, there has been a movement to move beyond these foundations the seek a better grasp of how cybernetics has travelled, translated, and diversified into many forms across disciplines, but also across countries. This panel will join this movement, inviting contributions that push beyond dominant framings of cybernetics in order to examine it in ways that are multiple, especially transnationally and transdisciplinarily. 
The panel invites scholars interested in thinking of cybernetics as multiple, diverse in its origins, forms, and effects, with the goal of beginning a collective discussion about the foundations and futures of cybernetics and information societies broadly. Papers may address: histories of cybernetics beyond Euro-American contexts; cybernetics’ interactions with other disciplines, including but not limited to economics, education, management, cognitive sciences, life sciences, ethics and philosophy; and cybernetics in popular culture.
This panel invites papers that deepen understandings of the histories, cultures, and politics of cybernetics. Since the mid-twentieth century, cybernetics has exercised a profound influence on contemporary science, technology, and society. Its historical development and impacts have received significant recent attention, which has shown how cybernetics emerged to shape not only the technological infrastructures and politics of the present day, but also the intellectual, ethical, and trajectories of disciplines across the natural and social sciences and engineering. 
While the importance of cybernetics is widely recognized, the stories told about it are largely situated within post-World War II Euro-American contexts and focused on a recognized group of influential figures and institutions. In recent years, there has been a movement to move beyond these foundations the seek a better grasp of how cybernetics has travelled, translated, and diversified into many forms across disciplines, but also across countries. This panel will join this movement, inviting contributions that push beyond dominant framings of cybernetics in order to examine it in ways that are multiple, especially transnationally and transdisciplinarily. 
The panel invites scholars interested in thinking of cybernetics as multiple, diverse in its origins, forms, and effects, with the goal of beginning a collective discussion about the foundations and futures of cybernetics and information societies broadly. Papers may address: histories of cybernetics beyond Euro-American contexts; cybernetics’ interactions with other disciplines, including but not limited to economics, education, management, cognitive sciences, life sciences, ethics and philosophy; and cybernetics in popular culture.
This panel invites papers that deepen understandings of the histories, cultures, and politics of cybernetics. Since the mid-twentieth century, cybernetics has exercised a profound influence on contemporary science, technology, and society. Its historical development and impacts have received significant recent attention, which has shown how cybernetics emerged to shape not only the technological infrastructures and politics of the present day, but also the intellectual, ethical, and trajectories of disciplines across the natural and social sciences and engineering. 
While the importance of cybernetics is widely recognized, the stories told about it are largely situated within post-World War II Euro-American contexts and focused on a recognized group of influential figures and institutions. In recent years, there has been a movement to move beyond these foundations the seek a better grasp of how cybernetics has travelled, translated, and diversified into many forms across disciplines, but also across countries. This panel will join this movement, inviting contributions that push beyond dominant framings of cybernetics in order to examine it in ways that are multiple, especially transnationally and transdisciplinarily. 
The panel invites scholars interested in thinking of cybernetics as multiple, diverse in its origins, forms, and effects, with the goal of beginning a collective discussion about the foundations and futures of cybernetics and information societies broadly. Papers may address: histories of cybernetics beyond Euro-American contexts; cybernetics’ interactions with other disciplines, including but not limited to economics, education, management, cognitive sciences, life sciences, ethics and philosophy; and cybernetics in popular culture.
This panel invites papers that deepen understandings of the histories, cultures, and politics of cybernetics. Since the mid-twentieth century, cybernetics has exercised a profound influence on contemporary science, technology, and society. Its historical development and impacts have received significant recent attention, which has shown how cybernetics emerged to shape not only the technological infrastructures and politics of the present day, but also the intellectual, ethical, and trajectories of disciplines across the natural and social sciences and engineering. 
While the importance of cybernetics is widely recognized, the stories told about it are largely situated within post-World War II Euro-American contexts and focused on a recognized group of influential figures and institutions. In recent years, there has been a movement to move beyond these foundations the seek a better grasp of how cybernetics has travelled, translated, and diversified into many forms across disciplines, but also across countries. This panel will join this movement, inviting contributions that push beyond dominant framings of cybernetics in order to examine it in ways that are multiple, especially transnationally and transdisciplinarily. 
The panel invites scholars interested in thinking of cybernetics as multiple, diverse in its origins, forms, and effects, with the goal of beginning a collective discussion about the foundations and futures of cybernetics and information societies broadly. Papers may address: histories of cybernetics beyond Euro-American contexts; cybernetics’ interactions with other disciplines, including but not limited to economics, education, management, cognitive sciences, life sciences, ethics and philosophy; and cybernetics in popular culture.
This panel invites papers that deepen understandings of the histories, cultures, and politics of cybernetics. Since the mid-twentieth century, cybernetics has exercised a profound influence on contemporary science, technology, and society. Its historical development and impacts have received significant recent attention, which has shown how cybernetics emerged to shape not only the technological infrastructures and politics of the present day, but also the intellectual, ethical, and trajectories of disciplines across the natural and social sciences and engineering. 
While the importance of cybernetics is widely recognized, the stories told about it are largely situated within post-World War II Euro-American contexts and focused on a recognized group of influential figures and institutions. In recent years, there has been a movement to move beyond these foundations the seek a better grasp of how cybernetics has travelled, translated, and diversified into many forms across disciplines, but also across countries. This panel will join this movement, inviting contributions that push beyond dominant framings of cybernetics in order to examine it in ways that are multiple, especially transnationally and transdisciplinarily. 
The panel invites scholars interested in thinking of cybernetics as multiple, diverse in its origins, forms, and effects, with the goal of beginning a collective discussion about the foundations and futures of cybernetics and information societies broadly. Papers may address: histories of cybernetics beyond Euro-American contexts; cybernetics’ interactions with other disciplines, including but not limited to economics, education, management, cognitive sciences, life sciences, ethics and philosophy; and cybernetics in popular culture.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Lots of debates have recently arised about an alleged crisis of trust in science. Scientific knowledge is increasingly  entangled in crossed accusations of ‘fakeness’, conspiracy and falsification, on a number of critical issues (vaccines, pollution, climate, etc.). To make sense of this somewhat blurry picture, this panel argues for the necessity to go back to the basics of STS, adopting a symmetrical approach of contemporary contestations of science. This way, we wish to depict a large continuum of critiques, mobilizations and material resources at play in the transformation of the way we collectively apprehend the scientific truth. Contributions could follow three lines of research:
(1) by analyzing the material practices of so-called alternative science: how do climate skeptics or anti-vaxxers (for instance) collect data, design experiments, publicize results supporting their marginated theories?
(2) by documenting how corporate actors strive to undermine scientific consensus in order to defend their interests (building networks of journals, think tanks, philanthropic organizations, etc.) and/or how scientific institutions deal with such corporate involvement in knowledge production;
(3) by investigating the mobilization of heterogeneous actors (scientists, journalists, physicians) to fight what they consider irrational attacks against reason and progress. What kind of strategies, arguments and alliances do they build to “debunk fake science”?
We welcome a variety of cases and methods, in particular analyses focusing on the Global South (with different epistemic traditions & non-hegemonic scientific production), and/or using digital methods.
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Vilem Flusser wrote that human knowledge of animal minds must navigate between the “Scylla of anthropocentric arrogance” and the “Charybdis of nostalgie de la boue” (2012). While nonhuman modes of sensing are often athwart to or simply alien from human phenomenologies, technoscientific actors enact enmeshments with such Others in radical forms of relational world-making—for instance, with brittlestars (Barad 2007) and with dogs (Haraway 2008). This panel explores the discourses, values, and practices through which scientists, technologists, and designers speculate on and care about nonhuman modes of sensation. 
Over the past decade, scholars have described how our knowledge of nonhuman phenomenology is mediated by language (Kohn 2013), sentiment (Sharp 2019), gesture (Kalshoven 2018), and care (Wanderer 2018; cf. Candea 2010). Building on this work, we invite panelists to reflect on how the production of knowledge about nonhuman minds informs experimental and technical design and, in turn, how such designs affect the epistemological possibilities of knowing “what it is like to be” nonhuman (see Nagel 1974). How do epistemologies of the senses—the confrontation of the gaze (Derrida 1997), the immersive quality of sound (Roosth 2009), the intimacy of touch (Hayward 2010)—cultivate interspecies knowledge-making?
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical, methodological, and topical perspectives that examine the dialectic of human perception and nonhuman sensibility. Submissions may include empirical studies of the experimental and technical infrastructures through which nonhuman phenomenologies are grasped or theoretical examinations of human-nonhuman intersubjectivity (not just between biological organisms but also with AI and machines).
Open panel to discuss theories and practices of “nudging” (also referred to as “libertarian paternalism”) as a way to respond to unequal and uncertain worlds. Open panel to function in round robin format between paper presenters, with brief Q&A following each paper and wider discussion to follow all presentations and their corresponding Q&A sessions. Cass R. Sunstein (2014) defines nudges as “liberty-preserving approaches that steer people in particular directions, but that also allow them to go their own way,” and they are “intended to ensure that people do not struggle when they seek to interact with their government or to achieve their goals.” This open panel will address questions of nudging’s efficacy with regard to rationality, ethics, and agency within unequal and uncertain worlds. Can nudging prove to instantiate greater equality and certainty when we most need it, and if so, how? ***Open panel submitter has a paper that is conference ready that describes nudging in the context of transhumanism and material agency, using thinkers such as Bruno Latour, Andy Clark, and Lambros Malafouris.***
Open panel to discuss theories and practices of “nudging” (also referred to as “libertarian paternalism”) as a way to respond to unequal and uncertain worlds. Open panel to function in round robin format between paper presenters, with brief Q&A following each paper and wider discussion to follow all presentations and their corresponding Q&A sessions. Cass R. Sunstein (2014) defines nudges as “liberty-preserving approaches that steer people in particular directions, but that also allow them to go their own way,” and they are “intended to ensure that people do not struggle when they seek to interact with their government or to achieve their goals.” This open panel will address questions of nudging’s efficacy with regard to rationality, ethics, and agency within unequal and uncertain worlds. Can nudging prove to instantiate greater equality and certainty when we most need it, and if so, how? ***Open panel submitter has a paper that is conference ready that describes nudging in the context of transhumanism and material agency, using thinkers such as Bruno Latour, Andy Clark, and Lambros Malafouris.***
Open panel to discuss theories and practices of “nudging” (also referred to as “libertarian paternalism”) as a way to respond to unequal and uncertain worlds. Open panel to function in round robin format between paper presenters, with brief Q&A following each paper and wider discussion to follow all presentations and their corresponding Q&A sessions. Cass R. Sunstein (2014) defines nudges as “liberty-preserving approaches that steer people in particular directions, but that also allow them to go their own way,” and they are “intended to ensure that people do not struggle when they seek to interact with their government or to achieve their goals.” This open panel will address questions of nudging’s efficacy with regard to rationality, ethics, and agency within unequal and uncertain worlds. Can nudging prove to instantiate greater equality and certainty when we most need it, and if so, how? ***Open panel submitter has a paper that is conference ready that describes nudging in the context of transhumanism and material agency, using thinkers such as Bruno Latour, Andy Clark, and Lambros Malafouris.***
Open panel to discuss theories and practices of “nudging” (also referred to as “libertarian paternalism”) as a way to respond to unequal and uncertain worlds. Open panel to function in round robin format between paper presenters, with brief Q&A following each paper and wider discussion to follow all presentations and their corresponding Q&A sessions. Cass R. Sunstein (2014) defines nudges as “liberty-preserving approaches that steer people in particular directions, but that also allow them to go their own way,” and they are “intended to ensure that people do not struggle when they seek to interact with their government or to achieve their goals.” This open panel will address questions of nudging’s efficacy with regard to rationality, ethics, and agency within unequal and uncertain worlds. Can nudging prove to instantiate greater equality and certainty when we most need it, and if so, how? ***Open panel submitter has a paper that is conference ready that describes nudging in the context of transhumanism and material agency, using thinkers such as Bruno Latour, Andy Clark, and Lambros Malafouris.***
Open panel to discuss theories and practices of “nudging” (also referred to as “libertarian paternalism”) as a way to respond to unequal and uncertain worlds. Open panel to function in round robin format between paper presenters, with brief Q&A following each paper and wider discussion to follow all presentations and their corresponding Q&A sessions. Cass R. Sunstein (2014) defines nudges as “liberty-preserving approaches that steer people in particular directions, but that also allow them to go their own way,” and they are “intended to ensure that people do not struggle when they seek to interact with their government or to achieve their goals.” This open panel will address questions of nudging’s efficacy with regard to rationality, ethics, and agency within unequal and uncertain worlds. Can nudging prove to instantiate greater equality and certainty when we most need it, and if so, how? ***Open panel submitter has a paper that is conference ready that describes nudging in the context of transhumanism and material agency, using thinkers such as Bruno Latour, Andy Clark, and Lambros Malafouris.***
Open panel to discuss theories and practices of “nudging” (also referred to as “libertarian paternalism”) as a way to respond to unequal and uncertain worlds. Open panel to function in round robin format between paper presenters, with brief Q&A following each paper and wider discussion to follow all presentations and their corresponding Q&A sessions. Cass R. Sunstein (2014) defines nudges as “liberty-preserving approaches that steer people in particular directions, but that also allow them to go their own way,” and they are “intended to ensure that people do not struggle when they seek to interact with their government or to achieve their goals.” This open panel will address questions of nudging’s efficacy with regard to rationality, ethics, and agency within unequal and uncertain worlds. Can nudging prove to instantiate greater equality and certainty when we most need it, and if so, how? ***Open panel submitter has a paper that is conference ready that describes nudging in the context of transhumanism and material agency, using thinkers such as Bruno Latour, Andy Clark, and Lambros Malafouris.***
Open panel to discuss theories and practices of “nudging” (also referred to as “libertarian paternalism”) as a way to respond to unequal and uncertain worlds. Open panel to function in round robin format between paper presenters, with brief Q&A following each paper and wider discussion to follow all presentations and their corresponding Q&A sessions. Cass R. Sunstein (2014) defines nudges as “liberty-preserving approaches that steer people in particular directions, but that also allow them to go their own way,” and they are “intended to ensure that people do not struggle when they seek to interact with their government or to achieve their goals.” This open panel will address questions of nudging’s efficacy with regard to rationality, ethics, and agency within unequal and uncertain worlds. Can nudging prove to instantiate greater equality and certainty when we most need it, and if so, how? ***Open panel submitter has a paper that is conference ready that describes nudging in the context of transhumanism and material agency, using thinkers such as Bruno Latour, Andy Clark, and Lambros Malafouris.***
Open panel to discuss theories and practices of “nudging” (also referred to as “libertarian paternalism”) as a way to respond to unequal and uncertain worlds. Open panel to function in round robin format between paper presenters, with brief Q&A following each paper and wider discussion to follow all presentations and their corresponding Q&A sessions. Cass R. Sunstein (2014) defines nudges as “liberty-preserving approaches that steer people in particular directions, but that also allow them to go their own way,” and they are “intended to ensure that people do not struggle when they seek to interact with their government or to achieve their goals.” This open panel will address questions of nudging’s efficacy with regard to rationality, ethics, and agency within unequal and uncertain worlds. Can nudging prove to instantiate greater equality and certainty when we most need it, and if so, how? ***Open panel submitter has a paper that is conference ready that describes nudging in the context of transhumanism and material agency, using thinkers such as Bruno Latour, Andy Clark, and Lambros Malafouris.***
Open panel to discuss theories and practices of “nudging” (also referred to as “libertarian paternalism”) as a way to respond to unequal and uncertain worlds. Open panel to function in round robin format between paper presenters, with brief Q&A following each paper and wider discussion to follow all presentations and their corresponding Q&A sessions. Cass R. Sunstein (2014) defines nudges as “liberty-preserving approaches that steer people in particular directions, but that also allow them to go their own way,” and they are “intended to ensure that people do not struggle when they seek to interact with their government or to achieve their goals.” This open panel will address questions of nudging’s efficacy with regard to rationality, ethics, and agency within unequal and uncertain worlds. Can nudging prove to instantiate greater equality and certainty when we most need it, and if so, how? ***Open panel submitter has a paper that is conference ready that describes nudging in the context of transhumanism and material agency, using thinkers such as Bruno Latour, Andy Clark, and Lambros Malafouris.***
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
With the popularity of crowd-sourcing, peer production, and the sharing economy, the ideas of open platforms loom large.  Generally, an open platform refers to a technological system operating under a public standard so that applications following the same standard can be functionally integrated.  Standardization has a longstanding history since the Industrial Revolution.  In the 1970s-90s, the deliberations on open systems and protocols fuelled the development of personal computers and the Internet.  When hackers and activists launched the Free and Open Source Software movement in the 1980s-90s, they envisioned the operating systems GNU and Linux as quintessentially open platforms that epitomized the political ideals of freedom, transparency, community, and participation.  By the 2010s-20s, open platforms have gained novel connotations.  To start-ups, open-source environments such as GitHub become popular cyberspace for software development.  To small companies, social media like Facebook provide new opportunities to conduct business and marketing.  Large corporations and governments jump on the bandwagon to support the sustaining and advancing of open-platform software and hardware in operating systems (e.g., Android), telecommunications (e.g., 5G open wifi), and microprocessors (e.g., RISC-V).  In so doing, they nonetheless tread on a thin line between innovation, monopolistic interest, geopolitical competition, intellectual properties, privacy, and security.  In this panel, we try to make sense of these dazzling developments regarding open platforms.  From a global perspective, we examine how they revise the meanings of work, reconfigure the forms of organization, project visions about the future, and engage politics and governance in the digital age.
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Optical media, borrowed from Friedrich Kittler, is an expanded concept that connects photography, film and television with other techniques and technologies that mediate optics and vision (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, echocardiography, ad inf.). Normalized, expected and often desired, optical media shape how we perceive the reality that surrounds us, mediating our understanding and experience of our inter- and intra-relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and worlds. In so doing, they constitute power relationships that reify inequalities and uncertainties, the key themes of 4S 2021, rendering certain people, places, and things visible, invisible, or hypervisible. These issues have grown in importance in the wake of COVID-19 and social distancing, where optical media have become ubiquitous.
This panel welcomes interdisciplinary research from STS and neighbouring fields that critically examine the role of these embedded and disruptive technologies in guiding our world views and relationships. By paying attention to the modes of seeing and looking that shape our perceptions, behaviours, and practices we can begin to better address their effects on other information systems including but not limited to the ones we work in, socialize in, and reside in. Questions we ask include how are modes of looking shaped by digital optical media? What potentials are there for visual manipulation, exploitation, or psychological vulnerabilities? What new possibilities for ways of thinking, interacting or organizing information do these technologies offer? Who and what is being rendered visible, invisible, or hypervisible and the power politics of optical media?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Air is pure complexity: it is full of relations. We share the air with other living beings and every breath is exchange, an entanglement of heterogeneous entities transforming one another. Thus, air is a matter of connection, an interface where humans and other-than-humans, bodies, and the world interfere (cf. Adey 2014, Górska 2016). In times of the covid-19 pandemic air became an element known for its aerosols being capable of passing a virus mouth-to-mouth. However, the pandemic also revealed in an intensified way that ‘[a]ll air is not equal’ (Godfrey & Torres, 2016: 9), since the conditions of respiration are bound to social, spatial, material, political, and economic aspects. The crisis changed our thoughtless relationship with air and made both mi-croscopic connections and disconnections visible.
In this panel we seek to explore air as matter of dis/connection: Which microscopic dis/connections and relations become visible through the air? In which context can we study the politics and sociomateriality of breathing? How can we explore these sociomaterial assemblages of breathing? Which material practices are enacted by pandemic breathing (e.g. filtering, physical distancing)? In which sense do monitoring and data practices reveal the connectivity of air? Does data produce breathable and non-breathable spaces? How do different socio-geographical environments affect breathing? In which respect do bodies, places, buildings, and air data recon-figure one another? Which agentic conflicts, power relations, or inequalities become evident through pandemic breathing?
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
Techniques and technology have played a major role in the studies of governance ever since the pioneering works of Michel Foucault. Performativity of classification, quantification, and datafication is nowadays a central tenet of a number of fields. STS has showed how politics play out on the level of producing scientific knowledge, governmentality studies have studied the diverse locations of governing, and recent work in critical data studies, data activism, and data justice has shown the political and normative variability of data practices. In addition to this theoretical expansion, material proliferation of digital data forces more practitioners than ever to engage with the politics of data. They must negotiate the competing political pressures of participating in, shaping, and sometimes rejecting digital assemblages. 
Keeping good relations between citizens and data practitioners invites us to address the politics of data and its devices and techniques as a mode of governance. How do practitioners understand and navigate the political dilemmas of contemporary data practices? How do politics unfold, become visible, or remain invisible for practitioners? How are these dilemmas materialized in work, tools, and systems? How should we as researchers relate to such dilemmas? How does, if at all, recent attention to ethics and justice influence practitioner perceptions of data politics? The panel tries to expand STS discussion on data practices by inviting submissions that draw from sociology, political science, and media and communications. The panel welcomes especially empirical papers, but is also open to conceptual, theoretical, and philosophical papers that address data politics.
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
In recent years STS scholars have turned toward maintenance and repair as vital but overlooked responsibilities necessitated by our increasingly interconnected world. By foregrounding the banal – even boring – work of maintenance and repair, historians, theorists ethnographers, and others have exposed the constant effort that goes into preserving the functionality of everything from the vast sociotechnical assemblages of interstate highways to small, localized issues of personal comfort and bodily politics raised by air conditioning.
  Yet STS scholars have not yet made serious engagements with the maintenance and repair of cultural media, whose symbolic dimensions are typically left to media studies scholars. While interdisciplinary border crossings between STS and Media have increased, the wholesale digitization of media technologies demands that STS scholars contend with when, how, where, and why cultural media like paintings, radio, film and TV, games, and social media are repaired and maintained. This panel seeks to promote good relations between these two fields, bringing together questions of visibility and invisibility, labor, and innovation central to STS inquiries into repair and maintenance practices with questions of power and communication central to Media Studies. 
Themes to be explored in this panel might include but are not limited to:
1. Preservation and conservation of media artifacts
2. Sociotechnical repair and maintenance in archival collections
3. Digitization and the maintenance of media access
4. Fan and user resistance and repair practices
5. Software maintenance and algorithmic repair
6. Repairing trust and truth in social media
7. Maintenance, repair, and normalization
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
When talking about good relations with technologies and other-than-humans, as the conference theme does, new social robotics and Artificial Intelligence – or visions of their future version – are the perfect place for inquiry. For our panel, we are looking for talks that explore the relations between humans and their technological alter egos and/or the creation and design of such.
Recently the design and use of robots and AI in a variety of social settings have increased. They range from elaborate chatbots to smart assistants to AI therapists; from care- to companion- to sex robots and more. We are looking for contributions that explore the distinct nature of practices in interaction with those new social technologies. Especially, we want to investigate how these interactions can be kept or turned into “good” relations, against problems such as well-documented biases, racist and sexist premises, ethical concerns, or underlying technology-driven values.
Which knowledges, practices, and methods are helpful in creating, transforming, and studying relations between humans and technological others? Which STS-specific approaches, methods, and theories can help to create good relations?
What visions of the future are (or have been) envisioned in those technologies and how do they shape the future of unequal and uncertain worlds? Are there possible ideas that go beyond techno-dystopias for robotics and AI?
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Biomedical fields increasingly understand life not as genetically determined, but as developing in relation to socio-material experiences. STS has discussed this development as the emergence of a postgenomic era or the biosocial turn, exploring how it changes views on genetics, bodies, their temporality and relationship to environments. For instance, engagements with environmental epigenetics, the microbiome, or viruses, reorient attention towards conceptualising phenomena, such as environment or disease, as relational entities across time and space. Thinking with relationality is an approach we can also find in the philosophy of biology. Dupré (2018, 2020) and others further the notion of process ontology; a theory, which understands biological phenomena as constantly stabilising processes with and in their environments instead of closed entities. While we can observe attempts of biologists themselves to address life as processual in research designs (e.g., applying a life-course perspective), we seek to make a shift in the ontological status of biological thinking more explicit: how does biology come from theory to practice and vice versa?
This panel aims to further discussions on process ontology in STS and to consider how an interdisciplinary processual research agenda could look like in method and practice (Niewöhner/Lock 2018). We invite theoretical works that discuss how process ontology might inform biological theory as well as empirical engagements on how it becomes known experimentally and with what effects for understanding life. We also encourage ethnographic stories that make good relations visible (e.g., symbiotic relationships), contrasting prevailing reductionist accounts on health and disease in biology.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
Emerging technologies and technological promises offer important opportunities to study relationships, networks, and institution building. In recent years the notion of second quantum revolution brought forth the public attention to a new set of technologies being developed under the umbrella term of ‘quantum technology’. New technologies and their accompanying structures present opportunities for profound transformations of the existing hierarchies, institutions, and established norms. In this sense, the emerging quantum sciences are presented as a possible area of contestation for shifting techno-economic relations on the international level. However, major transformations are never contained in the strict bounds of international relations and geopolitics. There have been ongoing efforts of democratization of these technologies, and the public interest has been growing steadily since such devices became accessible through cloud access by IBM.
This panel aims to act as a relational and informational ‘trading zone’ for researchers in quantum ethics, history of quantum technologies, STS researchers in the QT field, and studies on QT that can be utilized by researchers in the STS field. We are looking for both empirical and critical studies focusing on quantum technologies that have a message to spread to the community of researchers. Although QT has a global community of researchers from physics, computer science, and a variety of engineering disciplines, it has always been a highly international and interdisciplinary field where the recent flow of public and private funding (more than 20B€ in the next 10 years) made it a suitable subject of inquiry from the STS perspective.
This 4S panel welcomes papers around the question of whether international scientific cooperation utilizing racial taxonomies demonstrates the systemic failure of research ethics under the demands of the so-called Global War on Terror and/or War on Crime? After the 9/11 attacks, US, European Union and Chinese security and science agencies expanded the scope of forensic genetic testing to include ancestry, phenotype and lineage estimation. US police usage of forensic genetics and facial recognition systems has been criticized for racial bias. Similar criticism has accompanied European Union funded projects like the Visible Genetic Traits Consortium (VisiGen). China also adopted war on terror rhetoric against separatist movements in Xinjiang. In 2014, in support of the Belt and Road Initiative, President Xi Jinping declared the “Peoples War on Terror” that has led to a cultural genocide, including the mass incarceration of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs and other largely Muslim peoples. Nonetheless, international cooperation on facial recognition and forensic genetic systems aimed at differentiating between Uyghurs and other Indigenous peoples (“minorities”) from Han Chinese settlers continued. Central to international cooperation have been the common shared organizing narratives of scientists acting in the name of the Greater Good or Humanity to develop manhunting technologies to help security forces find criminals, terrorists and/or insurgents. In these shared organizing narratives, visible phenotype traits like skin colour and eye colour and biogeographic ancestry estimates are touted as forms of intelligence that can help guide security forces to identify, track and capture/kill these enemies of civilization and so improve public safety.
This 4S panel welcomes papers around the question of whether international scientific cooperation utilizing racial taxonomies demonstrates the systemic failure of research ethics under the demands of the so-called Global War on Terror and/or War on Crime? After the 9/11 attacks, US, European Union and Chinese security and science agencies expanded the scope of forensic genetic testing to include ancestry, phenotype and lineage estimation. US police usage of forensic genetics and facial recognition systems has been criticized for racial bias. Similar criticism has accompanied European Union funded projects like the Visible Genetic Traits Consortium (VisiGen). China also adopted war on terror rhetoric against separatist movements in Xinjiang. In 2014, in support of the Belt and Road Initiative, President Xi Jinping declared the “Peoples War on Terror” that has led to a cultural genocide, including the mass incarceration of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs and other largely Muslim peoples. Nonetheless, international cooperation on facial recognition and forensic genetic systems aimed at differentiating between Uyghurs and other Indigenous peoples (“minorities”) from Han Chinese settlers continued. Central to international cooperation have been the common shared organizing narratives of scientists acting in the name of the Greater Good or Humanity to develop manhunting technologies to help security forces find criminals, terrorists and/or insurgents. In these shared organizing narratives, visible phenotype traits like skin colour and eye colour and biogeographic ancestry estimates are touted as forms of intelligence that can help guide security forces to identify, track and capture/kill these enemies of civilization and so improve public safety.
This 4S panel welcomes papers around the question of whether international scientific cooperation utilizing racial taxonomies demonstrates the systemic failure of research ethics under the demands of the so-called Global War on Terror and/or War on Crime? After the 9/11 attacks, US, European Union and Chinese security and science agencies expanded the scope of forensic genetic testing to include ancestry, phenotype and lineage estimation. US police usage of forensic genetics and facial recognition systems has been criticized for racial bias. Similar criticism has accompanied European Union funded projects like the Visible Genetic Traits Consortium (VisiGen). China also adopted war on terror rhetoric against separatist movements in Xinjiang. In 2014, in support of the Belt and Road Initiative, President Xi Jinping declared the “Peoples War on Terror” that has led to a cultural genocide, including the mass incarceration of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs and other largely Muslim peoples. Nonetheless, international cooperation on facial recognition and forensic genetic systems aimed at differentiating between Uyghurs and other Indigenous peoples (“minorities”) from Han Chinese settlers continued. Central to international cooperation have been the common shared organizing narratives of scientists acting in the name of the Greater Good or Humanity to develop manhunting technologies to help security forces find criminals, terrorists and/or insurgents. In these shared organizing narratives, visible phenotype traits like skin colour and eye colour and biogeographic ancestry estimates are touted as forms of intelligence that can help guide security forces to identify, track and capture/kill these enemies of civilization and so improve public safety.
This 4S panel welcomes papers around the question of whether international scientific cooperation utilizing racial taxonomies demonstrates the systemic failure of research ethics under the demands of the so-called Global War on Terror and/or War on Crime? After the 9/11 attacks, US, European Union and Chinese security and science agencies expanded the scope of forensic genetic testing to include ancestry, phenotype and lineage estimation. US police usage of forensic genetics and facial recognition systems has been criticized for racial bias. Similar criticism has accompanied European Union funded projects like the Visible Genetic Traits Consortium (VisiGen). China also adopted war on terror rhetoric against separatist movements in Xinjiang. In 2014, in support of the Belt and Road Initiative, President Xi Jinping declared the “Peoples War on Terror” that has led to a cultural genocide, including the mass incarceration of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs and other largely Muslim peoples. Nonetheless, international cooperation on facial recognition and forensic genetic systems aimed at differentiating between Uyghurs and other Indigenous peoples (“minorities”) from Han Chinese settlers continued. Central to international cooperation have been the common shared organizing narratives of scientists acting in the name of the Greater Good or Humanity to develop manhunting technologies to help security forces find criminals, terrorists and/or insurgents. In these shared organizing narratives, visible phenotype traits like skin colour and eye colour and biogeographic ancestry estimates are touted as forms of intelligence that can help guide security forces to identify, track and capture/kill these enemies of civilization and so improve public safety.
This 4S panel welcomes papers around the question of whether international scientific cooperation utilizing racial taxonomies demonstrates the systemic failure of research ethics under the demands of the so-called Global War on Terror and/or War on Crime? After the 9/11 attacks, US, European Union and Chinese security and science agencies expanded the scope of forensic genetic testing to include ancestry, phenotype and lineage estimation. US police usage of forensic genetics and facial recognition systems has been criticized for racial bias. Similar criticism has accompanied European Union funded projects like the Visible Genetic Traits Consortium (VisiGen). China also adopted war on terror rhetoric against separatist movements in Xinjiang. In 2014, in support of the Belt and Road Initiative, President Xi Jinping declared the “Peoples War on Terror” that has led to a cultural genocide, including the mass incarceration of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs and other largely Muslim peoples. Nonetheless, international cooperation on facial recognition and forensic genetic systems aimed at differentiating between Uyghurs and other Indigenous peoples (“minorities”) from Han Chinese settlers continued. Central to international cooperation have been the common shared organizing narratives of scientists acting in the name of the Greater Good or Humanity to develop manhunting technologies to help security forces find criminals, terrorists and/or insurgents. In these shared organizing narratives, visible phenotype traits like skin colour and eye colour and biogeographic ancestry estimates are touted as forms of intelligence that can help guide security forces to identify, track and capture/kill these enemies of civilization and so improve public safety.
This 4S panel welcomes papers around the question of whether international scientific cooperation utilizing racial taxonomies demonstrates the systemic failure of research ethics under the demands of the so-called Global War on Terror and/or War on Crime? After the 9/11 attacks, US, European Union and Chinese security and science agencies expanded the scope of forensic genetic testing to include ancestry, phenotype and lineage estimation. US police usage of forensic genetics and facial recognition systems has been criticized for racial bias. Similar criticism has accompanied European Union funded projects like the Visible Genetic Traits Consortium (VisiGen). China also adopted war on terror rhetoric against separatist movements in Xinjiang. In 2014, in support of the Belt and Road Initiative, President Xi Jinping declared the “Peoples War on Terror” that has led to a cultural genocide, including the mass incarceration of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs and other largely Muslim peoples. Nonetheless, international cooperation on facial recognition and forensic genetic systems aimed at differentiating between Uyghurs and other Indigenous peoples (“minorities”) from Han Chinese settlers continued. Central to international cooperation have been the common shared organizing narratives of scientists acting in the name of the Greater Good or Humanity to develop manhunting technologies to help security forces find criminals, terrorists and/or insurgents. In these shared organizing narratives, visible phenotype traits like skin colour and eye colour and biogeographic ancestry estimates are touted as forms of intelligence that can help guide security forces to identify, track and capture/kill these enemies of civilization and so improve public safety.
This 4S panel welcomes papers around the question of whether international scientific cooperation utilizing racial taxonomies demonstrates the systemic failure of research ethics under the demands of the so-called Global War on Terror and/or War on Crime? After the 9/11 attacks, US, European Union and Chinese security and science agencies expanded the scope of forensic genetic testing to include ancestry, phenotype and lineage estimation. US police usage of forensic genetics and facial recognition systems has been criticized for racial bias. Similar criticism has accompanied European Union funded projects like the Visible Genetic Traits Consortium (VisiGen). China also adopted war on terror rhetoric against separatist movements in Xinjiang. In 2014, in support of the Belt and Road Initiative, President Xi Jinping declared the “Peoples War on Terror” that has led to a cultural genocide, including the mass incarceration of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs and other largely Muslim peoples. Nonetheless, international cooperation on facial recognition and forensic genetic systems aimed at differentiating between Uyghurs and other Indigenous peoples (“minorities”) from Han Chinese settlers continued. Central to international cooperation have been the common shared organizing narratives of scientists acting in the name of the Greater Good or Humanity to develop manhunting technologies to help security forces find criminals, terrorists and/or insurgents. In these shared organizing narratives, visible phenotype traits like skin colour and eye colour and biogeographic ancestry estimates are touted as forms of intelligence that can help guide security forces to identify, track and capture/kill these enemies of civilization and so improve public safety.
This 4S panel welcomes papers around the question of whether international scientific cooperation utilizing racial taxonomies demonstrates the systemic failure of research ethics under the demands of the so-called Global War on Terror and/or War on Crime? After the 9/11 attacks, US, European Union and Chinese security and science agencies expanded the scope of forensic genetic testing to include ancestry, phenotype and lineage estimation. US police usage of forensic genetics and facial recognition systems has been criticized for racial bias. Similar criticism has accompanied European Union funded projects like the Visible Genetic Traits Consortium (VisiGen). China also adopted war on terror rhetoric against separatist movements in Xinjiang. In 2014, in support of the Belt and Road Initiative, President Xi Jinping declared the “Peoples War on Terror” that has led to a cultural genocide, including the mass incarceration of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs and other largely Muslim peoples. Nonetheless, international cooperation on facial recognition and forensic genetic systems aimed at differentiating between Uyghurs and other Indigenous peoples (“minorities”) from Han Chinese settlers continued. Central to international cooperation have been the common shared organizing narratives of scientists acting in the name of the Greater Good or Humanity to develop manhunting technologies to help security forces find criminals, terrorists and/or insurgents. In these shared organizing narratives, visible phenotype traits like skin colour and eye colour and biogeographic ancestry estimates are touted as forms of intelligence that can help guide security forces to identify, track and capture/kill these enemies of civilization and so improve public safety.
This 4S panel welcomes papers around the question of whether international scientific cooperation utilizing racial taxonomies demonstrates the systemic failure of research ethics under the demands of the so-called Global War on Terror and/or War on Crime? After the 9/11 attacks, US, European Union and Chinese security and science agencies expanded the scope of forensic genetic testing to include ancestry, phenotype and lineage estimation. US police usage of forensic genetics and facial recognition systems has been criticized for racial bias. Similar criticism has accompanied European Union funded projects like the Visible Genetic Traits Consortium (VisiGen). China also adopted war on terror rhetoric against separatist movements in Xinjiang. In 2014, in support of the Belt and Road Initiative, President Xi Jinping declared the “Peoples War on Terror” that has led to a cultural genocide, including the mass incarceration of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs and other largely Muslim peoples. Nonetheless, international cooperation on facial recognition and forensic genetic systems aimed at differentiating between Uyghurs and other Indigenous peoples (“minorities”) from Han Chinese settlers continued. Central to international cooperation have been the common shared organizing narratives of scientists acting in the name of the Greater Good or Humanity to develop manhunting technologies to help security forces find criminals, terrorists and/or insurgents. In these shared organizing narratives, visible phenotype traits like skin colour and eye colour and biogeographic ancestry estimates are touted as forms of intelligence that can help guide security forces to identify, track and capture/kill these enemies of civilization and so improve public safety.
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
The increasing digitalization of everyday life reveals a growing activity/presence of feminist practices in the digital sphere (D’Ignazio and Klein 2020; Jarvis 2009; McLean 2020). Such practices reconfigure the digital space and generate more safe, just, inclusive and unoppressive places (Young 1986) that challenge sexist and exclusionary practices. Moreover, in the recent/ongoing pandemic crisis where the digital sphere has augmented, (digital) care practices have gained a distinctive and leading role in people’s everyday lives. Standing against the neoliberal tradition of individualism and commodification, ‘radical care is often connected to positive political change by providing spaces of hope in dark times’ (Hobart and Kneese, 2020: x). In a world overwhelmed by systemic sexism and multiple crises of care, crises of care, such emancipatory possibilities of digital space are bound to play a central role.
This panel shifts attention towards feminist practices of radical care in the digital space and explores their genealogies, characteristics, dynamics, and limitations. We welcome contributions using transdisciplinary and intersectional methods to discuss digital care as related with understandings of inclusion, solidarity and interdependence. How can we theorize a more expanded notion, language and practice of care in the digital space? What would an understanding of radical care mean in relation with data management, digital security and infrastructure? How can radical practices challenge institutional carelessness and ‘carewashing’? How are existing platforms (re)shaped in more inclusive ways through intersectional practices of care? How does an STS perspective trouble notions of radical care, feminism and digital space? How can STS research on radical care and feminist digital practices reinforce and promote feminist knowledge production?
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Inspired by the cinema industry and science-fiction writers, Virtual Reality (VR) has been developing since the 1960s in several domains such as design, army, game design, education and is now largely used in medicine, from advanced surgery to mental healthcare. Depending on its application, VR comes in many forms. Typically a virtual helmet allows visual access to a virtual environment and is equipped with captors to replicate instantaneously the movements of the body. VR can be used for testing military scenarios, designing prototypes, training surgeons before operations, or treating phobias by virtually confronting patients with their fears.
VR can be used to replay situations in the past as well as to anticipate situations. Its tools are sought after to train and treat people in a standardized but also personalized way, at a minor cost. But its development raises numerous social, ethical, and ontological issues. Among them: What does the hybrid status of reality in the virtual world do to the conception of the situations where it is implemented? How does VR impact work processes and relationships? How do professionals (be they doctors, game designers, soldiers, etc.) use it to explore new ways of approaching performances? How does VR convey hopes and challenges specific to each context? How do this technology and the implemented scenarios reproduce unequal categories and worldviews? 
This panel aims to gather research that tackles these non-exhaustive questions, in order to understand the forms and consequences of the development of virtual reality technologies in various contexts.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Developments in machine learning in healthcare led to hopeful expressions regarding tailored care, early risk detection and information integration but come with ethical concerns as well. Solutions are predominantly sought in ethical principles (e.g. ‘fair’, ‘responsible’, ‘transparent’ or ‘trustworthy’ data analytics), technical fixes (e.g. synthetic data) and regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR). While laudable, this focus also comes with limitations: it ignores the implicit norms, routines and values already present within particular healthcare practices and it may lead to adverse effects, e.g. layering of multiple, conflicting rules that obfuscate healthcare work and increased regulatory pressure that reduces spaces to provide good care.
This panel explores the benefits of a shift in perspective from suitable legal-ethical frameworks and principles for machine learning in healthcare towards an ethnographic approach that studies ethics-in-practice and responsibility-in-the-making, centering on:
1.Responsible knowledge practices: how do machine learning initiatives reconfigure responsible knowledge practices in various healthcare domains?
2.Ethical work in situ: how are ethical decisions made within the mundane work of health practitioners, data scientists and other stakeholders (such as patient groups) in machine learning initiatives?
3.From rules to resilience: how can we make machine learning initiatives in healthcare more resilient? Instead of fixing responsibilities in rules, how can we explore the ‘texture’ of responsible data-driven healthcare in practice? 
In spirit of the conference theme, we particularly welcome studies that find new ways of producing ‘good relations’, working with medical professionals and data scientists through a mode of reflective engagement.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
Despite the proliferation of STS scholarship on biomedicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and geneticization, studies interrogating the social construction, regulation, and political economy of medical devices remain slim. Yet, past studies have shown how medical devices and technologies are rich sites for STS investigation. Medical devices are increasingly used in routine clinical care, and include a broad range of objects from MRI machines to assays to surgical implants. Medical devices are regulated in a variety of ways depending on national contexts. In the United States, medical devices, unlike pharmaceuticals, often come to market without rigorous safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials. This regulatory environment purports to encourage innovation, but it also creates uncertainty surrounding potential harm to the public. What regulatory regimes exist in different nations to approve and govern medical devices and innovation? What standards of proof are needed to gain regulatory approval in particular contexts? How do the ways in which medical devices are regulated impact patient care and safety? How does medical device innovation shape scientific knowledge about human bodies, health, and illness? What shapes the political economies of medical device development, adoption, and use? We seek empirical contributions that explore questions about the political economy and regulation of medical technologies and devices, their construction, and the developers who create them. We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent medical technologies and devices for inequality and health justice.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. Within its history, the breaking point is undoubtedly Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende’s government. Chile’s historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily developed after the 1973 coup d’état. Beer’s design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. On the other hand, good but insufficient attempts have been made in the field of biologies, such as the theory of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, which have not been able to add value to the VMS. The errors in the design of the VMS can be summarized as follows:
 Confusion of interactions with relationships
 Confusing Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization
 Confusion of centrism and centralities necessarily as central,
 Establish isomorphisms in a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with Information and Entropy.
This work shows that the VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources (Third Order Cybernetic). This is the basis of the socialist design which forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety.
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This session takes its inspiration from transformations in manufacturing and digitization that have been observed around the world in the aftermath of COVID-19. The fast spread of the pandemic led to shortages in Personal Protective Equipment and other medical devices essential for healthcare. As an expression of practices and methods in uncertain times these resulted in a surge of maker and hacker movements dedicated to producing this equipment through 3D-printing and other means. Simultaneously there has been an increase in digitization of healthcare through telemedicine and virtual consults, mostly governmentally mandated. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with a highly altruistic-seeming provision of aid by several communities of practice, while on the other hand, governments have an interest in building in certain control mechanisms to ensure certainty. While there has been a long standing interest in STS in how technologies mediate action, we are interested in exploring how these objects/technologies  become entangled in new sociotechnical imaginaries as they intertwine forms of responsibility, solidarity and care. What kind(s) of relations are enabled through these new practices? How do they unsettle existing structures of expertise?
This session will bring together scholars who are interested in analyzing the ambivalences and challenges of these new practices in divergent settings. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical analyses that address the following questions:
How is care reflected in these emerging sociotechnical assemblages?
How do maker communities conceptualize technical creation, expertise and collective action?
What do these emerging practices mean for vulnerable populations?
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.
This panel seeks to convene current critical engagements on the (extra-)terrestrial, the cosmos and their material entanglements with Earth and its human and non-human inhabitants. We situate this panel within the thematic emphasis of 4S 2021 Good Relations and will explore active reimaginings of interpersonal and inter-institutional relations surrounding space science infrastructures and environments. Can we have Good Relations within and between groups interested in space and the cosmos who have different priorities, epistemologies, and approaches? Are there practices and methods that could bridge differences between (un)equal stakeholders? What would decolonial approaches to space science look like? How might space science and exploration fit within diverse reparations frameworks?
The landscapes of space science on Earth are global and varied. They span labour practices, land uses, and channelling of other resources (for example extracted minerals, clear skies, capital). In this session, we draw attention to those displaced, impacted by, excluded from, or allowed conditional access to the terrestrial environments and artifacts (objects, waste, data) of Outer Space, and to resistive and restorative practices that can or have been undertaken. We especially encourage contributions that take decolonial, Indigenous, queer, and/or feminist approaches to understanding, reimagining, and transforming terrestrial relationships with Outer Space. We are interested in a range of methods, practices, and praxes to understand human and non-human relationships with terrestrial environments of Outer Space.